TRAC has just done some calculations and it looks like having a traditional ?corded phone? and no wireless phone is in fact slightly cheaper than having a wireless phone without a ?<A title="Find local and long distance plans!" href="/##PATH_US_EN_LLDdefault.aspx">corded phone</A>.? For most consumers, the price difference alone isn't a big issue since almost all consumers today have both a corded and a wireless phone. The problem lies in ?overbuying,? when consumers buy more minutes (whether via landline or wireless service) than they actually need or use.
<P></P>
<P>With the ability to get so-called ?naked? DSL (i.e. without including local phone service) from phone companies and high speed cable modem service from cable companies, more people seem to be willing to take the plunge and go totally <A title="Wireless specials!" href="/##PATH_US_EN_WLSPdefault.aspx">wireless</A>. For many consumers, this cuts out the costly redundancy of having a landline that they rarely use, but pay $20-$30 or more per month to maintain. TRAC would like to know what you are thinking about ?cutting the cord? and relying exclusively on wireless phones. Have you tried it? Do you like it? Do you find that you are using more minutes and pushing your wireless bill too high? Have your phone bills dropped significantly? Do you find it inconvenient for three-way calling, or are the handset's features, such as speaker phone, sufficient? </P>
<P>Source: Telecommunications Research and Action Center. trac.org<BR></P>
