Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While yes much of the USF goes for infrastructure in remote areas, the difference is these people still are paying for the service, therefore, the money is coming back into the program.
Ehm - they're paying something, but they don't even begin to cover costs. Hence the annual $4 billion contribution to their phone service. Remote communities simply wouldn't be able to afford phone service if they paid full cost.
Quote:
And incidentally, it is not cheaper to provide cell phones than POTS lines, to claim any different is just asinine, and also goes to show that someone has no clue what they are talking about.
The overhead for an additional voice-only handset is much lower. It's a SIM card and a handful of keystrokes, probably entered by a call-center drone in India. Compared to the paying skilled linesmen US wages for maintaining a physical line per handset, it's peanuts.
The idea of wireless voice as some sort of luxury is just marketing flim-flam.
cell is not cheaper to provide and service, I am not sure where you get these ideas, but this is not the case.
Establishing the baseline infrastructure is expensive. Adding a 120-min/month handset to the infrastructure, once it 's in place, is ridiculously cheap.
And now they are considering offering broadband service as well to the poor.
And bundles of phone/broadband.
The pilot program ran in California. $9.95 for broadband. Going to expand to all 50 states 1/1/2013.
I would imagine that for those of us who pay our phone bills, the charge is going to go up for universal service because we'll now be paying for phone and internet for the poor.
Oh and if they don't have computers at home the government will sell them a laptop for $150.
Establishing the baseline infrastructure is expensive. Adding a 120-min/month handset to the infrastructure, once it 's in place, is ridiculously cheap.
Please quit speaking of what you have no clue about. Guess what the cell phone towers connect to? That is right they connect into the same copper wiring that all land lines use. So, the cost is the same as a land line usage, plus on top of that there is the charges of the airwaves being used.
Ehm - they're paying something, but they don't even begin to cover costs. Hence the annual $4 billion contribution to their phone service. Remote communities simply wouldn't be able to afford phone service if they paid full cost.
The overhead for an additional voice-only handset is much lower. It's a SIM card and a handful of keystrokes, probably entered by a call-center drone in India. Compared to the paying skilled linesmen US wages for maintaining a physical line per handset, it's peanuts.
The idea of wireless voice as some sort of luxury is just marketing flim-flam.
You need to understand that cell phones do not work like walkie talkies, they still connect to the same infrastructure.
Since the telco providers only have to maintain the wiring up to the point of entrance, there is no cost per handset. Also majority of the copper lines running to what is known as the DMarc does not need any maintenance and will not need anything done to it for many many years.
And now they are considering offering broadband service as well to the poor.
And bundles of phone/broadband.
The pilot program ran in California. $9.95 for broadband. Going to expand to all 50 states 1/1/2013.
I would imagine that for those of us who pay our phone bills, the charge is going to go up for universal service because we'll now be paying for phone and internet for the poor.
Oh and if they don't have computers at home the government will sell them a laptop for $150.
From your link: Eligible families must (1) have at least one student enrolled in the Free School Lunch Program, and for the broadband offering, also (2) not be a current Cox broadband subscriber (or have subscribed in the last 90 days), and (3) not have an overdue bill or unreturned equipment with Cox.
I saw nothing about phone service...just computers and/or broadband service....all aimed at students.
Ehm - they're paying something, but they don't even begin to cover costs. Hence the annual $4 billion contribution to their phone service. Remote communities simply wouldn't be able to afford phone service if they paid full cost.
The overhead for an additional voice-only handset is much lower. It's a SIM card and a handful of keystrokes, probably entered by a call-center drone in India. Compared to the paying skilled linesmen US wages for maintaining a physical line per handset, it's peanuts.
The idea of wireless voice as some sort of luxury is just marketing flim-flam.
My husband, who spent years working in telecom, made the same point when I shared this post with him. It's much less expensive to drop a tower that can service an entire region than maintain land-lines that must terminate at each household. I have no opinion about the legitimacy of the program being discussed, but the economics of cell phones vs. land-lines is hard to argue.
My husband, who spent years working in telecom, made the same point when I shared this post with him. It's much less expensive to drop a tower that can service an entire region than maintain land-lines that must terminate at each household. I have no opinion about the legitimacy of the program being discussed, but the economics of cell phones vs. land-lines is hard to argue.
If your husband actually worked in Telecom, then he knows the cell phone towers still terminate to the same copper wire infrastructure so they still use the same wiring.
he also knows that majority of houses already have lines ran to them.
If your husband actually worked in Telecom, then he knows the cell phone towers still terminate to the same copper wire infrastructure so they still use the same wiring.
he also knows that majority of houses already have lines ran to them.
Yes, and they fail. My 35-year-old house no longer has functional land-line service for reasons unknown. Never had it repaired. No need. We have cell phones. Additionally, every new house built must have a new line. That said, I acknowledge that the areas where this program exists are probably not seeing many new builds.
Yes, and they fail. My 35-year-old house no longer has functional land-line service for reasons unknown. Never had it repaired. No need. We have cell phones. Additionally, every new house built must have a new line. That said, I acknowledge that the areas where this program exists are probably not seeing many new builds.
Yet to fix it, it would have only taken one hour and some cable, which would of been less then the cost of a cell phone. And no not every new house needs a new line ran, only a location that never had a building prior.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
