This IS a brilliant idea. The trade off (if you replace your home phone) is that you can drop your potentially high land line bill for only $10 a month with a cellphone. You also get great reception in the hotspots. $10 is definitely VERY fair price for this service. I guess there always has to be THAT guy, you know... the nonconformist.Oh, and BTW I come VERY close to using all of my minutes every month.
I see it as a flaw because in some cases you're being billed for using their cellular network when in actuality you may have only used that network for one minute. Of course, the flipside is also true ... in some cases you may be on their cellular network while not being billed as such ... but if their technology is adept enough to hand you back and forth between cellular and WiFi networks, they certainly could devise a way to bill those calls correctly.
I don't get it, you are interested in cellphones, but you don't like the iPhone?There's lots of explanations for it, but so far it seems to be "Anti-Apple" people who don't like iPhone. I think I now know why certain people have been using the term "emo" recently. It perfectly explains this phenomenon.I say these people just have issues. It's emotional, and they are offended in some way by the likes of iPhone. My recommendation: Use the Block button and put them on ignore.
Yep, feels like it was almost hijacked. Sometimes comments can be more informative or useful than the article. it is a shame when a few people destroy that. I get it if someone is spamming with links or whatever- but if its relevant or informative - let it be and stop messing up the site here. I saw a couple comments above linked to other articles and a few of them told me more than the Times article did. I wouldn't have found those if it wasn't for digg or the comments but most of them seem to have gotten negative diggs for adding a link. why? total twits.
not really sure what you were talking about there buddy but I wasn't bitching cos this was submitted twice but because it took so long for people to find out about this on digg ( I dugg the original article a week before this one hit the front page). I certainly dont want less informed people.
dxpsteveJul 5, 2007
This IS a brilliant idea. The trade off (if you replace your home phone) is that you can drop your potentially high land line bill for only $10 a month with a cellphone. You also get great reception in the hotspots. $10 is definitely VERY fair price for this service. I guess there always has to be THAT guy, you know... the nonconformist.Oh, and BTW I come VERY close to using all of my minutes every month.
uptownJul 5, 2007
I see it as a flaw because in some cases you're being billed for using their cellular network when in actuality you may have only used that network for one minute. Of course, the flipside is also true ... in some cases you may be on their cellular network while not being billed as such ... but if their technology is adept enough to hand you back and forth between cellular and WiFi networks, they certainly could devise a way to bill those calls correctly.
benlindelofJul 6, 2007
I don't get it, you are interested in cellphones, but you don't like the iPhone?There's lots of explanations for it, but so far it seems to be "Anti-Apple" people who don't like iPhone. I think I now know why certain people have been using the term "emo" recently. It perfectly explains this phenomenon.I say these people just have issues. It's emotional, and they are offended in some way by the likes of iPhone. My recommendation: Use the Block button and put them on ignore.
rockingamadeusJul 6, 2007
Yep, feels like it was almost hijacked. Sometimes comments can be more informative or useful than the article. it is a shame when a few people destroy that. I get it if someone is spamming with links or whatever- but if its relevant or informative - let it be and stop messing up the site here. I saw a couple comments above linked to other articles and a few of them told me more than the Times article did. I wouldn't have found those if it wasn't for digg or the comments but most of them seem to have gotten negative diggs for adding a link. why? total twits.
anuttamJul 8, 2007
not really sure what you were talking about there buddy but I wasn't bitching cos this was submitted twice but because it took so long for people to find out about this on digg ( I dugg the original article a week before this one hit the front page). I certainly dont want less informed people.