Our problem is that our family uses so few voice minutes and relatively little data use (100 min/3Gb between the 3 of us) that AT&T doesn't offer a shared data plan that makes any sense at all for us. I take the lion's share, using 2/3 of that data.)
We have 2 unlimited and 1 2Gb plans and we pay ~$160/mo. (before corp discount.)
Any changes we make immediately take us up to almost $200.
Insane.
Your usage sounds like ours. My provider, Rogers, has also come out with Data Sharing. They charge $10 for a tablet, but $55 for each smartphone.
Fortunately, I was able to get 2 corporate plans for $50/mth that provide enough voice and data. (5GB each) The plan they offer that is ideal for me is their tiered data-only plan for the iPad. The iPad Mini would is perfect for my use 95% of the time, but not so great when tracking running or cycling through Endomondo. So for now I'm stuck using a iPhone plan, and only using 20% of what I pay for.
Does it not work out to cost about the same though because you're buying phones off-contract and paying full price? I'm looking at their plans and it looks like it's honestly about the same price. If I take the three iPhones on my plan now, I'm paying about $195. MetroPCS would charge $135 (for their 2.5gb data plan). Over a two-year contract that saves $480 per line. But I'd pay about that much more to buy a phone off-contract.
If I wanted unlimited data, my savings would go down to $240 per line so it would actually cost more over the two-year contract period. The only upshot would be unlimited everything. Since my first smartphone, the most data I've ever used in a month is 1.8gb. I'm on a 1400 minute plan, but never use that many and have nearly 6000 minutes banked.
Lastly, MetroPCS doesn't appear to offer data-only plans, so if I add any tablets or laptop cards I'm out of luck.
I'm not trying to defend AT&T's high prices, I'm just saying I'm not seeing how it costs "a lot less" to go with a reseller.
I'm a lot like you, I think.
We have 2 iPhones with unlimited, 1 iPhone with 2GB and 2 dumb phones with the 700 minute family plan with no chance of going over on minutes.
We pay 90 +9.99 for the extra 4 lines for the plan and unlimited text and 30,30 and 25 for data. - that's $215 (before taxes & such)
If we go to sharing at 6GB (90) + 35/iPhone (105) and 30 per dumb phone(60) - that's $265 for the same service with the risk of going over 6GB (sometimes our 2 unlimited go over 2GB). If we kill that risk, it adds $15 (+30 for 10 GB, -$15 for phones) to our total.
How is it better for me to not have my unlimiteds (meant for those who say the unlimiteds are not worth it)?
In 2012 AT&T had total revenues of $127,434,000,000 and net profits of $7,264,000,000. So a net profit of about 6 percent. So not exactly gouging. We know the European plans are much cheaper than US plans. What drives the costs in the US so high? Are the companies just wasting money on gold plated faucets or are the cost of doing business, in wireless that much higher? The landline business accounts for about 30 percent of the profits, so it is not big sink of funds. I would love to see cheaper fuller featured phone plans, but that does not look likely given the current conditions.
In 2012 AT&T had total revenues of $127,434,000,000 and net profits of $7,264,000,000. So a net profit of about 6 percent. So not exactly gouging. We know the European plans are much cheaper than US plans. What drives the costs in the US so high? Are the companies just wasting money on gold plated faucets or are the cost of doing business, in wireless that much higher? The landline business accounts for about 30 percent of the profits, so it is not big sink of funds. I would love to see cheaper fuller featured phone plans, but that does not look likely given the current conditions.
Compare the land mass between countries. How much more does it cost to build a maintain a network in the US versus in Europe?
The former West Germany is about the size of Utah. Add in the East and you get Utah and southern Idaho. With that you get a potential 81 million customers (German population 2012). The US has a population not quite 4x that but the landmass of the US is much more than 4x, so the cost to put a network up that covers a significant part of the population is much higher in the US.
And Germany is also less spread out for the given size of the country. The towns and cities tend to be big clumps that drop off to nothing outside of the city boundaries. So you can much more easily get good coverage due to the density of the cities and towns. The US has much more "sprawl" and lesser density even in the cities and towns on average. LA has a lot of people, but it is much more spread out than an equivalent city there.
Comments
Our problem is that our family uses so few voice minutes and relatively little data use (100 min/3Gb between the 3 of us) that AT&T doesn't offer a shared data plan that makes any sense at all for us. I take the lion's share, using 2/3 of that data.)
We have 2 unlimited and 1 2Gb plans and we pay ~$160/mo. (before corp discount.)
Any changes we make immediately take us up to almost $200.
Insane.
Your usage sounds like ours. My provider, Rogers, has also come out with Data Sharing. They charge $10 for a tablet, but $55 for each smartphone.
Fortunately, I was able to get 2 corporate plans for $50/mth that provide enough voice and data. (5GB each) The plan they offer that is ideal for me is their tiered data-only plan for the iPad. The iPad Mini would is perfect for my use 95% of the time, but not so great when tracking running or cycling through Endomondo. So for now I'm stuck using a iPhone plan, and only using 20% of what I pay for.
So a year ago I bought iPhone 5 unlocked and use it with Consumer Cellular, an AT&T MVNO. Only $45 for low usage.
I had tried T-Mobile but their coverage wasn't good in this area (don't know if that may have changed).
Does it not work out to cost about the same though because you're buying phones off-contract and paying full price? I'm looking at their plans and it looks like it's honestly about the same price. If I take the three iPhones on my plan now, I'm paying about $195. MetroPCS would charge $135 (for their 2.5gb data plan). Over a two-year contract that saves $480 per line. But I'd pay about that much more to buy a phone off-contract.
If I wanted unlimited data, my savings would go down to $240 per line so it would actually cost more over the two-year contract period. The only upshot would be unlimited everything. Since my first smartphone, the most data I've ever used in a month is 1.8gb. I'm on a 1400 minute plan, but never use that many and have nearly 6000 minutes banked.
Lastly, MetroPCS doesn't appear to offer data-only plans, so if I add any tablets or laptop cards I'm out of luck.
I'm not trying to defend AT&T's high prices, I'm just saying I'm not seeing how it costs "a lot less" to go with a reseller.
I'm a lot like you, I think.
We have 2 iPhones with unlimited, 1 iPhone with 2GB and 2 dumb phones with the 700 minute family plan with no chance of going over on minutes.
We pay 90 +9.99 for the extra 4 lines for the plan and unlimited text and 30,30 and 25 for data. - that's $215 (before taxes & such)
If we go to sharing at 6GB (90) + 35/iPhone (105) and 30 per dumb phone(60) - that's $265 for the same service with the risk of going over 6GB (sometimes our 2 unlimited go over 2GB). If we kill that risk, it adds $15 (+30 for 10 GB, -$15 for phones) to our total.
How is it better for me to not have my unlimiteds (meant for those who say the unlimiteds are not worth it)?
In 2012 AT&T had total revenues of $127,434,000,000 and net profits of $7,264,000,000. So a net profit of about 6 percent. So not exactly gouging. We know the European plans are much cheaper than US plans. What drives the costs in the US so high? Are the companies just wasting money on gold plated faucets or are the cost of doing business, in wireless that much higher? The landline business accounts for about 30 percent of the profits, so it is not big sink of funds. I would love to see cheaper fuller featured phone plans, but that does not look likely given the current conditions.
Compare the land mass between countries. How much more does it cost to build a maintain a network in the US versus in Europe?
The former West Germany is about the size of Utah. Add in the East and you get Utah and southern Idaho. With that you get a potential 81 million customers (German population 2012). The US has a population not quite 4x that but the landmass of the US is much more than 4x, so the cost to put a network up that covers a significant part of the population is much higher in the US.
And Germany is also less spread out for the given size of the country. The towns and cities tend to be big clumps that drop off to nothing outside of the city boundaries. So you can much more easily get good coverage due to the density of the cities and towns. The US has much more "sprawl" and lesser density even in the cities and towns on average. LA has a lot of people, but it is much more spread out than an equivalent city there.
Frigging maps just don’t show that…
Because West Germany doesn't exist any more. You'll need a pre 1990 map in order to see it.
*exhales* That was a good one. I approve of that one.