Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Drew Williams who wrote (7865)	3/23/2000 4:53:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13582

Drew: Yes, the US has had a fine working wireline system. The reason caller pays is not permitted by the FCC is that the "big boys" who have provided that fine wireline system fear wireless. And wire has caller pays now. Denying that to wireless gives wire an advantage. And the FCC "listens" to the wireline operators - the old guard - not individual consumers. Let's just take a simple point. Please explain to me how caller pays hurts the ordinary individual (non business) comsumer. Have you actually talked to any of your non business neighbors on this? Curious? If ATM fees raise emotions, think about the emotional baggage which goes with forcing people to pay for calls which they do not want. Why should they? Let the advertizer or boiler shop sales organization pay, not the poor guy who gets the unwanted call. Is this a difficult concept on fairness principles? It is brute, raw power that prevents caller pays, not consumer wishes. So what does the FCC do, go with the powers that be, or the consumer? Your call. Again, this is complex but the basic point seem very simple. Why should you or I pay for a call we do not want? Best. Chaz PS And not only is this a basic fairness issue, it also makes a difference, however small, against wireless vs the status quo (where caller pays now) wireline. Isn't sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander? If caller pays is good for wire, why not for wireless? PPS I feel strongly about this because it is just another way wireless is descriminated against in the regulation process. And it is on margin another factor slowing the nation wide wireless roll out vs wireline - just IMO.

To: Drew Williams who wrote (7865)	3/25/2000 9:20:00 AM
From: Sweet Ol	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

I agree totally. And let me add that phone service here has not only been universally available, it is quickly installed (except for DSL with a 30 day wait in my area). Most of the rest of the world waited a long time to get a phone installed. Furthermore, they have always been charged for the duration of local calls, which have been part of the basic monthly fee for most users. In other words, the main driving force for wireless in the good ol' USA has been convenience, not availability or cost. I have a cell phone, and so does my wife. Most days neither of us uses them. They just sit in the cars because we are seldom more than a few feet from a wired phone, either at home or at the office. On the other hand, my real estate friends and service technicians seem to use them constantly because they are always outside. Sorry I got so verbose, but I think the reason for wireless adoption in the rest of the world is mostly an issue of availability and cost, not just convenience. JRH