Reviews:
 ·Frontier Communi..
| licensed freqencies What part of the above is so hard to understand?
The carriers paid billions of dollars for the right to EXCLUSIVELY broadcast transmissions in the cellular/PCS/AWS/etc bands. Stop acting as though it's some sort of conspiracy because they want the ability to control which devices broadcast on these frequencies, where they are located, and how much power they transmit.
Femtocells are available to fix coverage gaps. Of course people around here bitch about those too, with absolutely no technical understanding of what is required to ensure femtocells don't interfere with users of the macro cellular network. I've even seen people bitching about the fact that they can't easily change the antenna configurations or tweak the transmit levels of their femtocell. Apparently they equate them to wi-fi access points and desire the same amount of control over them, forgetting that wi-fi has only limited ability to deprive your neighbor of service and that it operates on unlicensed frequencies.
Invest in a landline or femtocell if the service sucks that badly where you live. Break your contract if you must, Verizon and T-Mobile both have "get out of jail free" cards in their contract if you move somewhere that has no coverage. I presume AT&T and Sprint do as well, though I've never done business with them directly and can't confirm. |
|
| Investing in a landline doesnt help with my cell not working?
Femtocell's require broadband capable of a sustained connection. If verizion had any intention of deploying high speed here, it would be an instant sell to 200 of the 300 homes. Instead, we're stuck with a copper infrastructure that is 40 years old. Believe me, I know where I live and how we're not going to see an antenna placed closer to us. But, its frustrating that I can 3 bars of 4G just 200 yards or so away, and if i want a booster, they're taking that option away |
|
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| said by jeepwrang3:Investing in a landline doesnt help with my cell not working? It gets you working telecommunications, isn't that the whole point? Working landline > cell phone with no signal.
said by jeepwrang3:and if i want a booster, they're taking that option away
With limited exceptions, you've never had the right to broadcast radio waves on a licensed frequency where you are not the licensee. I understand your frustrations here and it truly sucks but if you're being fair can you not understand why they don't want third parties putting up transmitters that broadcast on their licensed spectrum? Transmitters that they have no control over and limited recourse against if they interfere with other customers?
Besides, you DO have other options. Voice communications are easily provided for with a POTS line. If you have 4G service 200 yards away it would be just as easy to get it back to your house with wi-fi as it is to invest in a cellular repeater that may or may not be legal. |
|
| I certainly understand the part about not wanting third parties developing without standards set. Thats why Wilson to my understanding started working immediately with the FCC.
As far as a wifi setup, I've certainly looked into it as my current source of internet is a deliberant system of hops from a buddy's T1. Climbing 3 roofs rather than one is the reason why i've passed on that thus far.
I know you keep saying POTS line, i could care less about one. If it was cheap thats one thing. The fact that after taxes it was roughly 50 bucks a month, just to have my # sold to various groups, I decided to pass on it in the new house. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| said by jeepwrang3:I know you keep saying POTS line, i could care less about one. If it was cheap thats one thing. The fact that after taxes it was roughly 50 bucks a month, just to have my # sold to various groups, I decided to pass on it in the new house.
My Frontier POTS line is $26/mo and change. My old Verizon one was around $30/mo as I recall. Not sure where you live but I find $50/mo hard to fathom, unless you're including additional services or some sort of package deal that's allegedly going to save you money (they rarely do).
As far as selling your number, the only reason wireless companies aren't doing that is because they are prohibited by law from doing so. That prohibition stems from the fact that incoming wireless calls cost you money. This is slowly ceasing to be the case as unlimited calling plans become the norm rather than the exception and I wouldn't be surprised if we see this legal prohibition removed in the not-so-distant future. |
|
mworks
join:2006-06-13
Faison, NC | reply to Crookshanks
said by Crookshanks:What part of the above is so hard to understand?
The carriers paid billions of dollars for the right to EXCLUSIVELY broadcast transmissions in the cellular/PCS/AWS/etc bands. Stop acting as though it's some sort of conspiracy because they want the ability to control which devices broadcast on these frequencies, where they are located, and how much power they transmit.
They didn't pay billions. Verizon formed a shell company that was sold spectrum at a discount as small business and then after winning the bid closed out the company. These are the type of tactics telecom has used for years. They will do whatever they can to push the laws as far into their favor as possible. They want signal boosters for one reason only, less cost for them . If they can increase transmit power at the phone end then they win in a big way. |
|
