🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6220026@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com> dclaar@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (Doug Claar) writes:
>>Picturephones are a lousy counterexample, on account of because 1) they aren't
>----------
>I believe that Cellular phones are pitched to business people because of
>the cost and revenue potential. There is a large pool of business people 
>to sell to, and it is probably easier to justify as a business expense.
>From observation, the more affluent generally appear to have cell phones.

Cellular phones get discussed a lot in comp.dcom.telecom. It's almost
one of those "Oh no, not again.." topics there.

Oh, My point? The moderator of comp.dcom.telecom repeatedly points out
that a cellular phone is not necessarily only affordable by businessmen
and drug dealers. He spends about $40 a month on his, all told (yes, roaming
charges and everything) and he says he makes about 2 calls a day on it on
average...

With the current FCC mandated duopoly, as long as *your two cellular
companies* have a supply of businessmen and drug dealers that they can
sell to, your local prices will stay high. After they've taken the
lucrative market for all it will give, the price will probably come down
to where us real people can afford it.

Of course by then, the businessmen will be paying through the nose for
"absolutely essential" skull-implant phones.. :-/

>Doug Claar
>HP Computer Systems Division
>Silly-putty valley, Ca.
>UUCP: mcvax!decvax!hplabs!hpda!dclaar -or- ucbvax!hpda!dclaar
>ARPA: dclaar%hpda@hplabs.HP.COM

Disclaimer: I'm not Patrick Townshend (sp?) nor do I play him on TV.

-- 
Disclaimer: Yeah, right, like you really believe I run this place.
John R. Murray              |        "Never code anything
murray@vsjrm.scri.fsu.edu   |          bigger than your head.."
Supercomputer Research Inst.|               - Me