- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
I agree with you that Verizon, AT&T, and the others don't want to see a government run network because it would put them out of business; that was one of the points I made in my earlier post. Can you blame them though? What do you expect them to do? "Sure! Go ahead and create your cheap network! Put us out of business, we don't mind!" Surely you can see where they're coming from. It's a bad idea to compare what Verizon is doing to what healthcare/pharmaceutical providers are doing. Wireless service in NOT A NECESSITY. HEALTH CARE IS ABSOLUTELY A NECESSITY and should be provided to everyone for free (other than the tax cost). Comparing wireless to health care is hardly "apples to apples" and should not even factor in to this discussion.
Millenicom might use the same towers, but it's a different network; they likely use a different receiver on the same tower. It's the same with wireless carriers; they'll use the same tower with both of their receivers on it to save money from builiding their own or if there is no space to build one, and pay the tower's owner for the privilege. It's called a roaming network. Just because AT&T and Verizon might share a tower, the networks are different and therefore have different limits. It's the same with Millenicom, which means they may be able to charge less for more data because they're running a smaller network, customer base, or both, and so they don't have to worry as much about bandwidth. This is all speculation, though.
My point is that Millenicom might have different rates that work for you (congratulations) but that doesn't mean anything other than they're trying to beat their competition by offering unlimited data for the same price. I'm willing to bet that if their network was as large as Verizon's we'd see a cap in their usage also.
No one is trying to argue that $59.99 for internet service is a great deal (we'd all like to have it cheaper), I'm just saying that it doesn't matter whether you think it's fair or not because it's not Verizon's responsibility to be fair, as Verizon is not a utility; "fair" would only happen if Verizon sold the product to you at the same cost they paid to provide it, without making any profit. Anyway, all that matters is you knew the terms when you signed up. If you don't like them anymore, cancel. Will you have to go without? Maybe.
Finally, 1% is a GROSS exaggeration of the people who are fine with 5GB of service. Remember, for every customer that complains, there are at least 50 more that are happy with their service, and therefore don't say anything. The few people who complain on these forums (including you) are hardly representative of the millions of customers Verizon services that are satisfied. Besides, the people that think the limit is too little are usually using the service in a way it was never intended to be used, like for heavy downloading, or as their primary ISP. It's meant to be a SUPPLEMENTAL service, not your primary provider. If it's your only option, you'll just have to limit your usage or pay the overage cost.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
See http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/broadband.html for government policy on broadband. Here's an excerpt:
OVERVIEW OF THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 (RECOVERY ACT)
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) was signed into law by President Obama on February 17th, 2009. The FCC is currently working in coordination with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to perform the FCC’s role under the Recovery Act. Specifically, in conjunction with the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program established by the Act, the FCC has been tasked with creating a National Broadband Plan by February 17, 2010. The Recovery Act states that the National Broadband Plan shall seek to ensure all people of the United States have access to broadband capability and shall establish benchmarks for meeting that goal.
That sounds a lot like a utility. It is that important to the country. Just like electric and phone providers were forced to run wires to every residence, some day the companies that have the privilege of providing broadband for money will have to make sure everyone has access. These privileged companies that provide wireless broadband lease bands of the electromagnetic spectrum (radio frequencies) that allows wireless communication. Who do these companies lease spectrum from? The public. Us. We're their landlord, in a sense, and that gives us a right to crab about the service they provide, whether it be the price, reliability, or whatever, even if not a customer. So, don't worry about complaining about your tenant, all landlords do it.
On a lighter note, I called Verizon's customer service today and a very nice lady cut my overage charge in half and moved me to the newer plan where the overage charge is only a nickel per MB compared to the 25 cents per MB I was paying. That was nice.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
NetMeter only works on one computer. I need something that watches the modem itself, sitting in the router. I suppose I could install NetMeter on each computer and add them up myself. I don't think it would install on my Xbox, though, so no way to monitor that. Anyone know of software that can watch usage thru a modem residing in a router?
Broadband is very close to becoming a utility (necessity), like electricity. Electric providers don't get to charge whatever the market bears because the government regulates the industry for our benefit. They make a reasonable profit but it isn't a free market. Like I said before, Cricket broadband didn't quite cover me, leaving Verizon the only provider in town. Companies that operate as a monopoly leave their customers vulnerable so the government regulates them. I suppose I should complain to the FCC if Verizon won't listen. 5 GBs is simply not enough, likely by an order of magnitude (50 GBs).Think of downloading a couple of movies on the weekends. That might come to 40 GBs by itself. Better make that two orders of magnitude. Hey, I can dream, can't I?
Your argument that I shouldn't be using it for my primary access sounds like it's coming from someone who has other means of access. (Can you count dial-up as access? I don't think so, after using it for many years and until recently. The FCC doesn't seem to think so either. See http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/broadband.html .)
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
All citizens of this country should have access to quality, affordable health care. It doesn't matter how we pay for it, premiums or taxes.
I pay for Charter cable as my primary internet source and Verizon mobile broadband for when I travel. I'm retired and nobody reimburses me. When I decide where I want to live, I take into consideration availability of all the things I want and need. If I was a farmer or someone who needed more than 5 GB of wireless broadband, I guess I would pay $120 for two plans.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
[edit]. Most American Farmers can barely make ends meet. If you want to pay for some druggie that will not work health care you can pay it out of your owe pocket not mine. I worked hard for what I've got.
{please keep your posts courteous}
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Never mind.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Thank you gwhnewbie. Well said.