Comments on: @Home No Longer To Be Sold For Your Home

By: Lonny Highman

Lonny Highman — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 08:27:51 +0000

Its amazing to me how many ways you can go about investing your money. I've found for me that best solution is both risky and low risk stocks. I tend to put about half of my investments into low risk mutual funds that grow over time plus the other half in high risk high gain stocks. I recently got into day trading and I found that software stock picks are the most reliable as they can automate a process that I cant do quickly enough. The guys over at PrometheusFinancials.Com have a terrific system. You need to check them out!

By: colinnwn

colinnwn — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 23:05:04 +0000

AT&T & Comcast charge between $20-40 monthly for home phone even with bundled discounts. That is $5-25 more per month than @home. Magicjack has terrible customer service and requires you to keep your computer on 24/7 with buggy software running, probably costing $10 per month in electricity.

@home failure was purely a marketing problem on selling more, and support problem between them and Linksys regarding the problems a decent number of users had. But as far as cost competitive VOIP, I know of nothing in the same class, except maybe Ooma.

By: Bill48105

Bill48105 — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:39:17 +0000

Yes what you say is true but you mean to tell me connecting @Home calls costs TMo more than calls made on their cell network if you used a tower instead? I’d sooner say any cell carrier (esp ATT who’s network is getting beat to hell by iphone users) would love to move traffic off towers to the customer’s internet connection! (What do you think the push for femtocells & wifi hotspots is for??) Yes @Home costs TMo money but come on TMo should be begging every one of their customers to have an @Home line, heck even give many away for free to people who make tons of calls from their home tower(s). It boils down to poor marketing by TMo and failing to understand the pros/cons of the service let alone filling in the sales/support staff on why @Home is win win had it been done right.

By: mike

mike — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:33:41 +0000

if you (you = someone with @Home) are calling from your @home line, to a person with a regular phone line, or even a cell phone, that voip call has to terminate on the POTS (plain ole telephone service) phone network, aka the PSTN (publicly switched phone network) which costs t-m-mobile money. they do not own the phone lines, they pay “ma bell” , or whoever is the LEC, ILEC, or CLEC in the area, (local, incumbent, or competitive – exchange carrier, respectively), to terminate those calls and rout them to their destination.

It’s not free. Additionally, even voip to voip isn’t free, internet bandwidth does cost money, and so does the addition of capacity t-mobile may have had to add to provide good service for @home to work, perhaps they didn’t get a good ROI (return on investment).

By: joe

joe — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 04:56:15 +0000

I agree and a big problem was always needing the hi speed internet and service with T-Mobile. Lots of people interested but not shelling out the money for the required services. Not worth the hassle for most of the customers I’ve seen…

By: Bill48105

Bill48105 — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 23:38:43 +0000

Speaking of MagicJack, anyone see this? http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/us_tec_gadget_show_magicjack
Supposedly will give free calling for GSM phone users! And here TMo & other carriers were sweating Google Voice! Does make me wonder hth it won’t interfere with legit cell service especially in congested areas like apartment complexes etc where the footprints would overlap & possibly overpower the real towers. Guess we’ll see assuming TMo & ATT don’t file lawsuit trying to stop them 1st anyway.

By: OmegaJB

OmegaJB — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:28:24 +0000

I’m bummed that it didn’t take off and I hope they just don’t cancel the service when your agreement runs out. For $10.00 per month it’s the best deal going. The sound quality is just as good a Vonage and it costs a lot less.

By: ala

ala — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:29:13 +0000

this was coming. if you check http://www.t-mobile.com/templates/ListAllPhones.aspx/?features=4ce9c948-6b53-4b76-a3f7-9116f33bd25b&WT.mc_n=TMHSDevice_WiFiLP&WT.mc_t=Offsite , they have pretty much eliminated all uma-capable phones except blackberries, which SUCKS. i need a uma phone to get reception at my house. i never had the service though.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:18:13 +0000

It was a good idea. It really was. The landline is still being used. Not a lot, which is why the $10 mark was reasonable. But T-Mobile messed up 3 ways.

1. Flex pay should have the right to have it. There was more of a demand for the flex pay customers. So to single out the people who really want to spend the money was just dumb.
2. No advertising. They spent all their money on Bret Favre and never aired the commercial. Tisk Tisk.
3. Even more (plus) plans ruined it. 15 dollars a month if you want to pay 40 dollars for a wireless router. Or 10 dollars a month for 150 dollar router. The bargain went out the window there.

Auf Wiedersehn @home

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:18:13 +0000

It was a good idea. It really was. The landline is still being used. Not a lot, which is why the $10 mark was reasonable. But T-Mobile messed up 3 ways.

Auf Wiedersehn @home