🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <hthldr$ad9$1@blue.rahul.net>,
 falk@green.rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) wrote:

> My understanding is that because of AT&T's poor coverage in some areas,
> they make the MicroCell available to improve your personal coverage
> inside the immediate area of the device.  The device attaches to the
> broadband you already have.
> 
> In other words, they're giving you the privilege of paying them money so
> you can expand *their* inadequate infrastructure for them, using network
> bandwidth you're also paying for.

This is the interpretation I've seen taken by a lot of people -- I don't 
buy it.  

My house is in a very dead spot for cell signals -- and this happens 
because I have a lot of surrounding dense trees and shrubs all around my 
house, which I'm able to enjoy and which give me privacy, and a lot of 
berm-provided noise shielding from a nearby noisy freeway.

I don't think Verizon (or AT&T) should be required by a divine mandate 
to put up an expensive extra tower just to serve me, and  I'm happy to 
pay the modest price for the femtocell, with no additional cost at all 
(at least for the Verizon case)