3 ms·
>Worse, it appears to be justifying the new fee in a dubious way, saying it's "simplifying" the system to bring a "more consistent and straightforward experienc
by unethical_ban 4y ago
>Worse, it appears to be justifying the new fee in a dubious way, saying it's "simplifying" the system to bring a "more consistent and straightforward experience for customers." In other words, you'll no longer need to wonder if you'll get soaked for the charge or not — you definitely will.
I love this line.
Honestly, if someone were in a situation where constant connectivity were not necessary, I feel many people could get the absolute cheapest phone line available and just use one of the major communications tools on wifi. WiFi is so ubiquitous in most places, and with some planning everything you need can be cached offline.
I only suggest a phone line at all for authentication to signal and Whatsapp, etc. and perhaps emergency calls.
- kevincox 4y agoThe problem is that SMS is actually fairly popular in the US and Canada. And "WiFI Calling" isn't that great. I definitely want my mobile provider to be a dumb data pipe but it is against the grain with what most people actually want. That being said I have sort of achieved it by getting a data-only "tablet" plan. However it is a pain because some apps are very confused that you don't have a number and Android really wants you to use the default dialer instead of a SIP app for calls.
- unethical_ban 4y agoI agree it would have its complications, like onboarding your contacts onto a non-phone/sms tool for realtime communication. I was just stating that its more possible to escape telecom these days, even mobile, than it has been before.
- reaperducer 4y agoit's "simplifying" the system to bring a "more consistent and straightforward experience for customers." This is true. It's simplifying things by imposing the same upgrade fee that AT&T does. Competition is messy. Tacit collusion makes things simpler for customers.