> A US carrier makes a great deal of money off roamers. Since virtually the
> 850mhz carrier (ATT and Cingular) also have 1900mhz licenses, they already
> have roaming agreements in place with the major European carriers. Why
> would they knowingly turn down the revenue for calls made on their 850mhz
> band?
> This is sort of my comment too. Of course, the carriers can screw it up any
> way they want. Also, I assume there will be some GSM-850 carriers (e.g.
> Centennial, NECCI, etc) that may only bother to set up roaming with other US
> & Canadian carriers. They would be looking for the roaming revenue from the
> AT&T and Cingular customers, rather than the international roamers.
Wouldn't it make more sense for a carrier serving Podunk, Iowa to set up a
roaming agreement with, say, Microcell or Rogers that serves all of Canada,
than for it to not? The Canadian provider gets a small roaming area; the
small US provider gets to add an entire nation to its roaming list.
Jim
Donald Newcomb - 28 Jul 2003 23:30 GMT
> > This is sort of my comment too. Of course, the carriers can screw it up
> any
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> than for it to not? The Canadian provider gets a small roaming area; the
> small US provider gets to add an entire nation to its roaming list.
Yeah. I don't think I said anything that would negate that. However, it
might not pay "Podunk Cellular" to set up roaming with every carrier in,
say, Belgum, when only one or two visitors from Belgum visit Podunk every
year.
--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
Remove 'NOT' from address to reply
Jim MacKenzie - 29 Jul 2003 18:12 GMT
> Yeah. I don't think I said anything that would negate that. However, it
> might not pay "Podunk Cellular" to set up roaming with every carrier in,
> say, Belgum, when only one or two visitors from Belgum visit Podunk every
> year.
Indeed. I misread what you stated.
Jim