Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: Lars Poulsen Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Radio Shack CT-102 Message-ID: <9577@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 10 Jul 90 17:06:06 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: Rockwell CMC Lines: 32 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 472, Message 11 of 12 In article <9543@accuvax.nwu.edu> faunt@cisco.com (Doug Faunt) writes: >The Radio Shack CT-102 is for sale for $299. What does the Telecom >collective conciousness think of the unit? Are there better deals >available in the SF Bay area? What is the lowest base cost rate >available for service in the Bay Area? Radio Shack's ads indicate that the $299 price is conditional on signing up for service "with certain minimum commitments" with the carrier indicated by the vendor, and that the price is $599 if you just want the phone. A footnote says something like "service commitment does not apply where prohibited by state law". I seem to remember that the California PUC ruled against dealer kickbacks. This raises several questions, which I am sure somebody can answer: (1) Is the CPUC ruling a "state law" ? (2) When the "service commitment does not apply", which price applies ? If I can buy the phone for $299 with no strings attached, I might spring for it, just to be able to take it with when travelling. (Would I be eligible for roamer service if I did not have a subscription active at home ? What is the cheapest base subscription anywhere in the country if I needed a "phantom home" ?) Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM