If it's possible to take an off contract Verizon iPhone and getting it flashed to work with Virgin Mobile? If so I see this as an option for Verizon iPhone owners after their contracts expire.
That's completely up to Virgin Mobile. Take it to them and when they tell you, "No," you'll know whose fault it is.
Right, and you're happy to help others maximize their usage by using it yourself. Rather than encouraging these businesses to price more efficiently, you'd rather create a world where most people overpay, and then donate their surplus to people who are too cheap to pay for their true usage.
I don't believe you understood the concept he presented. It doesn't involve leeching other people's services. Rather, the concept proposes to use our own hardware (smartphones) to create a virtual network accessible by anyone within range of anyone else that has access.
Kind of like infinite, daisy-chained tethering.
Your concern may be founded in that one person must be a source, and they need to be getting their data from somewhere. If their data is not unlimited, this system will not work. It's not terribly feasible, and that's why it takes a company to provide mobile data service, but a guy can dream, right?
I don't believe you understood the concept he presented. It doesn't involve leeching other people's services. Rather, the concept proposes to use our own hardware (smartphones) to create a virtual network accessible by anyone within range of anyone else that has access.
Kind of like infinite, daisy-chained tethering.
Your concern may be founded in that one person must be a source, and they need to be getting their data from somewhere. If their data is not unlimited, this system will not work. It's not terribly feasible, and that's why it takes a company to provide mobile data service, but a guy can dream, right?
Yeah I understand, and yeah, that's my objection. He has a great idea, that lots of very poor places are doing or trying to do to get internet access for everyone. But his idea is that because he uses 40GB per month, everyone else should let him use some sliver of their internet connection, since they pay for way more than they use.
Looks like the pricing will stay the same for me and my wife. I use about a quarter of a GB a month and she uses much less. Too bad they don't offer a 1GB for $20 plan.
Ah, I remember not too long ago when many of the posters above were waiting with baited breath for the Verizon iPhone to debut. There would be a mass exodus to Verizon from the evil clutches of that dastardly at&t they said. Meanwhile I asked my three children who have smartphones (2 iPhones, 1 Droid) how they fare with their data plans with at&t. None of them come anywhere near 2GB per month. So it really is about bandwidth hogs who saturate their 3G connections 24/7/365. Sprint won't be far behind either. Deal with it.
bated |ˈbātid|
adjective (in phrase with bated breath)
in great suspense; very anxiously or excitedly : he waited for a reply to his offer with bated breath.
ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from the past participle of obsolete bate [restrain,] from abate.
USAGE The spelling : baited breath instead of bated breath is a common mistake that, in addition to perpetuating a cliché, evokes a distasteful image. Before using the expression bated breath, think of the verb : abate, as in : the winds abated, not fish bait.
If Apple remains married to this idea for long there will be quite a bit of downside on their stock price methinks. Certainly, I'm not going to join the ranks and will keep my Razr and anyone paying those prices will have to be daft!
Don't blame Apple. Apple/iPhone and Google/Android for that matter, have nothing to do with setting rates for any carrier. The carriers set the prices for all their plans.
Right.... because Verizon is a service company. Verizon sells the plans.
The iPhone is made by Apple... and that's who you buy the iPhone from.
My point is that the price of the plan is the same whether you purchase the phone at the $199 subsidized price or the full $649 price. That's ridiculous.
My point is that the price of the plan is the same whether you purchase the phone at the $199 subsidized price or the full $649 price. That's ridiculous.
Yes, and it shouldn't be that way. In reality if you buy the phone outright you should be getting Virgin Mobile type rates from Verizon. Only way Apple will be able to get around this is selling an unlocked CDMA phone to use on pre-paid networks like Cricket and Virgin. A Sprint iPhone would be a move in the right direction as well.
Just my 'luck', Just ready to make the plunge to an iPhone in Aug., when my Verizon contract is up. Been using a basic flip phone for over a decade, recently mixed with an iPod Touch for web-on-the go. This Verizon scheme of exorbitant tiered rates, so clearly intended to milk the web crowd has changed my mind.
I love the idea on the forum that somehow Verizon OR AT&T or indeed any huge company would act benevolently toward their customers.
"Why can't they just do 10 bucks for a gig, 10 for every gig after that?"
Because they don't have to.
Of course I would love that plan. I use about 300-400mb a month, nowhere close to 2gb. I pay 30/month for the unlimited data, so I might as well keep paying it.
They absolutely know that if there was a plan for 1GB for $10/month, or hell even 500MB for $15/month, I would instantly change to it without a second thought and as fast as I possibly could.
That's why they don't do it. That 10-15 dollar spread, times a whole lot of customers like me (that aren't super users but actually have a smartphone for a reason) would mean lots of lost cash.
Likewise, you either pay for 250 texts, 500 texts or unlimited texts. My mom sends about 18 texts a month. But she gets 250.
The tiered data is also no different from the older argument about talk time. Remember when you actually had to worry about minutes? Remember when Rollover Minutes was the greatest thing since the two-button mouse?
Now I have to pay $60/month, plus $10/line for 700 shared minutes. All 3 of my phones combined used 158 minutes last month.
But there's no 400 shared minutes/month for $35, now is there?
If cell phone companies in the US were about fairness, I'd be paying about $75 a month for 400 shared minutes, a gig of data each for my two smart phones and unlimited texts.
But that ain't how it works.
This message is far too long. Good thing I got the unlimited keystroke plan with my internet service...
At least ATT is making more money from those grandfathered users. Verizon, bizarrely, set up their pricing so that the 3GB is the same price as unlimited, removing any motivation for someone who uses 2.5GB and NEVER any more, to give up their unlimited. Very stupid pricing, if their goal is to get people off unlimited.
You. Don't. Get. To. Choose.
You have a contract for unlimited data for 2 years from the start of your plan, then your contract runs out, and they switch you. That's it.
Here is a point a number of hinted at but did not connect the dots. This could be a strategy that VZ is using to stop the AT&T and T-Mobile deal from going through. Everyone said they would switch if VZ changed more than other said switch to who since it could be only two provider in the near future. then others said the government or phone guys should step in and stop this all form happening...
Kind of interesting how this all works, I personally think this is VZ lame attempt at making the government take notice the pricing will increase especially on thinks like smart phone which happens to be the two hot buttons that FCC has been hamming AT&T on.
Comments
If it's possible to take an off contract Verizon iPhone and getting it flashed to work with Virgin Mobile? If so I see this as an option for Verizon iPhone owners after their contracts expire.
That's completely up to Virgin Mobile. Take it to them and when they tell you, "No," you'll know whose fault it is.
Right, and you're happy to help others maximize their usage by using it yourself. Rather than encouraging these businesses to price more efficiently, you'd rather create a world where most people overpay, and then donate their surplus to people who are too cheap to pay for their true usage.
I don't believe you understood the concept he presented. It doesn't involve leeching other people's services. Rather, the concept proposes to use our own hardware (smartphones) to create a virtual network accessible by anyone within range of anyone else that has access.
Kind of like infinite, daisy-chained tethering.
Your concern may be founded in that one person must be a source, and they need to be getting their data from somewhere. If their data is not unlimited, this system will not work. It's not terribly feasible, and that's why it takes a company to provide mobile data service, but a guy can dream, right?
I don't believe you understood the concept he presented. It doesn't involve leeching other people's services. Rather, the concept proposes to use our own hardware (smartphones) to create a virtual network accessible by anyone within range of anyone else that has access.
Kind of like infinite, daisy-chained tethering.
Your concern may be founded in that one person must be a source, and they need to be getting their data from somewhere. If their data is not unlimited, this system will not work. It's not terribly feasible, and that's why it takes a company to provide mobile data service, but a guy can dream, right?
Yeah I understand, and yeah, that's my objection. He has a great idea, that lots of very poor places are doing or trying to do to get internet access for everyone. But his idea is that because he uses 40GB per month, everyone else should let him use some sliver of their internet connection, since they pay for way more than they use.
Who in the world uses 80GB a month !!!???
-Eli
1. Buy a cheep phone with an unlimited data plan then buy the new iPhone in September at a significantly raised price.
2. Buy the iPhone 4 at a much cheaper price and keep it till my plan expires in 2 years and get the latest iPhone then.
3. Wait for the iPhone 5/4s in September and buy it at a cheaper price with a ridiculously expensive data plan.
What do you guys think I should do?
Ah, I remember not too long ago when many of the posters above were waiting with baited breath for the Verizon iPhone to debut. There would be a mass exodus to Verizon from the evil clutches of that dastardly at&t they said. Meanwhile I asked my three children who have smartphones (2 iPhones, 1 Droid) how they fare with their data plans with at&t. None of them come anywhere near 2GB per month. So it really is about bandwidth hogs who saturate their 3G connections 24/7/365. Sprint won't be far behind either. Deal with it.
bated |ˈbātid|
adjective (in phrase with bated breath)
in great suspense; very anxiously or excitedly : he waited for a reply to his offer with bated breath.
ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from the past participle of obsolete bate [restrain,] from abate.
USAGE The spelling : baited breath instead of bated breath is a common mistake that, in addition to perpetuating a cliché, evokes a distasteful image. Before using the expression bated breath, think of the verb : abate, as in : the winds abated, not fish bait.
Verizon also allows people to purchase the iPhone full price but they don't lower the cost of their plans which makes no sense.
Right.... because Verizon is a service company. Verizon sells the plans.
The iPhone is made by Apple... and that's who you buy the iPhone from.
If Apple remains married to this idea for long there will be quite a bit of downside on their stock price methinks. Certainly, I'm not going to join the ranks and will keep my Razr and anyone paying those prices will have to be daft!
Don't blame Apple. Apple/iPhone and Google/Android for that matter, have nothing to do with setting rates for any carrier. The carriers set the prices for all their plans.
So many weird comments.
And I finally have a signature.
Right.... because Verizon is a service company. Verizon sells the plans.
The iPhone is made by Apple... and that's who you buy the iPhone from.
My point is that the price of the plan is the same whether you purchase the phone at the $199 subsidized price or the full $649 price. That's ridiculous.
My point is that the price of the plan is the same whether you purchase the phone at the $199 subsidized price or the full $649 price. That's ridiculous.
That's how it is for every phone.
That's how it is for every phone.
Yes, and it shouldn't be that way. In reality if you buy the phone outright you should be getting Virgin Mobile type rates from Verizon. Only way Apple will be able to get around this is selling an unlocked CDMA phone to use on pre-paid networks like Cricket and Virgin. A Sprint iPhone would be a move in the right direction as well.
Good point, well taken. I think the phone manufacturers better use their clout or their products will be sitting on the shelves.
You assume that "all" consumers cares about few bucks more a month..you are wrong most consumers do not. Geez you complain about few bucks.
Wouldn't it be great if a cell phone maker essentially created their own cell network that worked only with phones?
Absolutely not, for many, MANY reasons.
Apple is doing this with their new messaging service between iPhones but I don't know how the information will be transferred.
The way all information on the Internet is transferred. Unless you're texting someone from within the iMessage application, then it's texting.
Would you spend $1000 for a phone that gave you unlimited calling and internet for that one time fee?
I'd also spend $1,000 on a DeLorean time machine. But let's talk about things that actually have a chance of happening before the turn of the century.
You assume that "all" consumers cares about few bucks more a month..you are wrong most consumers do not. Geez you complain about few bucks.
$30 isn't "a few". There's a legitimate reason to be upset about forced data plans.
"Why can't they just do 10 bucks for a gig, 10 for every gig after that?"
Because they don't have to.
Of course I would love that plan. I use about 300-400mb a month, nowhere close to 2gb. I pay 30/month for the unlimited data, so I might as well keep paying it.
They absolutely know that if there was a plan for 1GB for $10/month, or hell even 500MB for $15/month, I would instantly change to it without a second thought and as fast as I possibly could.
That's why they don't do it. That 10-15 dollar spread, times a whole lot of customers like me (that aren't super users but actually have a smartphone for a reason) would mean lots of lost cash.
Likewise, you either pay for 250 texts, 500 texts or unlimited texts. My mom sends about 18 texts a month. But she gets 250.
The tiered data is also no different from the older argument about talk time. Remember when you actually had to worry about minutes? Remember when Rollover Minutes was the greatest thing since the two-button mouse?
Now I have to pay $60/month, plus $10/line for 700 shared minutes. All 3 of my phones combined used 158 minutes last month.
But there's no 400 shared minutes/month for $35, now is there?
If cell phone companies in the US were about fairness, I'd be paying about $75 a month for 400 shared minutes, a gig of data each for my two smart phones and unlimited texts.
But that ain't how it works.
This message is far too long. Good thing I got the unlimited keystroke plan with my internet service...
At least ATT is making more money from those grandfathered users. Verizon, bizarrely, set up their pricing so that the 3GB is the same price as unlimited, removing any motivation for someone who uses 2.5GB and NEVER any more, to give up their unlimited. Very stupid pricing, if their goal is to get people off unlimited.
You. Don't. Get. To. Choose.
You have a contract for unlimited data for 2 years from the start of your plan, then your contract runs out, and they switch you. That's it.
Kind of interesting how this all works, I personally think this is VZ lame attempt at making the government take notice the pricing will increase especially on thinks like smart phone which happens to be the two hot buttons that FCC has been hamming AT&T on.