>Riiight, so that's why anyone who can afford it seems to be replacing
>their landlines with cell phones?
Bleah, the one guy I know who tried that owns a cell phone business
in Silicon Valley (Sunnyvale). He got all the free minutes and best
phones, so it seemed to be a financial no-brainer when he moved into
his new house to not purchase any land lines. He had to give it up
after a couple of months because he kept losing important calls.
> The only two things I generally use my
>landlines for nowadays are receiving faxes and calling internationally (I
>get a slightly better rate). There are companies out there like LEAP
>Wireless that are selling cell service as landline replacement. I think
>it is a MYTH that consumers actually care that phone service is "5 nines".
>The reason it is held to that standard is not because of market demand, but
>rather because of government regulations.
When I pick up my cell phone to make a call and it doesn't go through
or it gets disconnected, I'm irked - but I understand that it's the
price I pay for being mobile and a limitation of the technology.
When I'm at home, I *know* the level of service that land lines are
able to provide. I want crystal clear, reliable connections that are
made every single time I dial. If the phone companies degrade that
QOS, my phone service had better start being for free. If a
higher-quality non-free service is available, I imagine I'll be one
of the suckers paying for it.
I guess I'm a part of that MYTH you mentioned.
Regards,
Chris Russo
--
"If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought
or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet
hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance
which does harm."
-- Marcus Aurelius, MEDITATIONS, VI, 21
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:20 MDT