It seems logical to me that part of what you pay AT&T and Verizon for each month is not just service in your town, but to be able to use their network while you are hundreds of miles away. To these companies, global coverage is control, power, and leverage, so there is wheel recreating. With this sort of power comes the ability to justify crappy customer service - you control the infrastructure, it doesn't really matter what people think about you, you're making money. Comcast's model seems similar.
I'm moving to Toronto in two weeks, and have been looking at a provider called Wind Mobile, and I find their model interesting (Canada also has providers that are much closer to the US in their model, Wind seems unique in many ways). I'm sure there are similar models in some US cities.
Wind Mobile's coverage area is basically Toronto and some surrounding areas, but they have partnered with other providers to provide inexpensive roaming options (i.e. $0.15/min, $0.05/text and $0.05/MB), including $15 unlimited data plans in the US using T-Mobile. To Torontonians they offer limited data plans on what seems to be a fast network, and very simple and inexpensive plans that are based on bringing unlocked phones to the network.
This makes some sense to me, because first of all, most people don't travel a ton, and if you can justify having to pay a little bit extra for your roaming with great monthly rates (Wind offers cell service including unlimited data and unlimited Canada calling/texting for $35/month), wouldn't most people go for the low monthlies?
Secondly, why does every cell provider have to have their own national network? What is wrong with this sort of partnership where you use infrastructure from another network outside of the home network? If I were to wager a guess, these pretty sweet prices for unlimited usage are made available because of the focus on being a Toronto provider, rather than a national player.
Thoughts on this model?
Top