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: surpow who wrote (7957)	3/27/2000 4:36:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Respond to of 13582

surpow: You have opened my eyes. Perhaps the eyes of some of the yawners or "laid back" types here who couldn't care less whether wireless is held back by the FCC because that particular "regulatory" agency seems to support McCaw and the "big boy" and the baby bells and AT&T against the small wireless operators. Of course I must be wrong on that since we all know that the FCC is at the forefront of fairness for the consumer - in rhetoric. But practice? But as usual what I see, few others here seem to see, or perhaps just couldn't care less. You mean that the operators are charging both the caller and the person receiving the call? Charging twice for the same call? Guess I will have to shift my focus to the operators gouging their customers. Live and learn. So we have a double whammy. The FCC sides (from what I see, perhaps wrongly) with the wireline companies. But the wireless companies are double charging (or more accurately deducting minutes as used) from both repeat both the caller and the person receiving the call. What a rip off. Thanks for pointing this out. No wonder wireless is slow to take off in this country. It isn't so much who pays but that both pay here. In "caller pays" countries only one (the caller) pays. Most, most interesting and a new light on this. Best. Chaz