maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Unless...
...they bond together so that they can offer nationwide coverage, I think it is a stupid idea.
If they would work together, it may work. But I live on the edge of TWC (I have TWC) and Cox territory, and I would not want to drive down to south county and find out my cell no longer has a signal. 
In any case, diversity is not a bad thing. It isn't bad for your 401k, and you don't want to throw your media and telecom connections in one basket either.
I have TV and Internet through TWC.
I have Phone and Cell Phone through AT&T.
And see no good reason to change that.
--
"We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope" - Barack Obama, 2008. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Cox would have their own network in their footprint and outside of their footprint they'd roam on Sprint.
It would be national coverage just roaming after you get outside of your coverage area. If you went to another coverage area of Sprint's say here in Cleveland, you'd go back on to the Cox network from Sprint.
The same as you do not with AT&T. No coverage from ATT you roam on T-Mobile. |
|
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | reply to maartena
Roaming agreements will take care of that problem. That's how the current cell phone carriers handle the same problem. |
|
