AT&T drops price of 2GB no-contract plan by $15, T-Mobile doubles down on 'Simple Choice'
The wireless carrier price wars continue this weekend as AT&T and T-Mobile respectively announced price cuts and new data incentives for subscribers.
T-Mobile on Friday announced Simple Choice customers will soon have 1GB of 4G LTE data per month added to their account for free, effectively doubling the amount data previously allotted to the entry-level price tier. More data is available in 2GB chunks for an additional $10 per month.
Simple Choice customers will also get unlimited global texting from the U.S. and while abroad from 122 countries and destinations.
Along with the bonus data, the telecom quietly raised the price of its unlimited 4G LTE data option to $30, up from $20 per month. Terms still include 5GB of tethered data use.
T-Mobile's new pricing scheme is scheduled to take effect on Mar. 23, while the unlimited texting feature is set for activation in April.
As for AT&T, the nation's second-largest wireless telecom announced plans to cut pricing for single- and two-line no-contract accounts.
Starting Sunday, single-line Mobile Share Value plans will drop $15 to start at $65 for 2GB of data, unlimited talk and text, unlimited international messaging and 50GB of cloud storage. Two-line accounts start at $90 for the same services.
To go along with the new deal, AT&T is offering a $100 bill credit for activating a new line of postpaid service, including smartphones, tablets, mobile hotspots and feature phones.
T-Mobile on Friday announced Simple Choice customers will soon have 1GB of 4G LTE data per month added to their account for free, effectively doubling the amount data previously allotted to the entry-level price tier. More data is available in 2GB chunks for an additional $10 per month.
Simple Choice customers will also get unlimited global texting from the U.S. and while abroad from 122 countries and destinations.
Along with the bonus data, the telecom quietly raised the price of its unlimited 4G LTE data option to $30, up from $20 per month. Terms still include 5GB of tethered data use.
T-Mobile's new pricing scheme is scheduled to take effect on Mar. 23, while the unlimited texting feature is set for activation in April.
As for AT&T, the nation's second-largest wireless telecom announced plans to cut pricing for single- and two-line no-contract accounts.
Starting Sunday, single-line Mobile Share Value plans will drop $15 to start at $65 for 2GB of data, unlimited talk and text, unlimited international messaging and 50GB of cloud storage. Two-line accounts start at $90 for the same services.
To go along with the new deal, AT&T is offering a $100 bill credit for activating a new line of postpaid service, including smartphones, tablets, mobile hotspots and feature phones.
Comments
Why would the government break up a monopoly that they awarded in the first place? What's a reasonable level? Everyone is applauding T-Mobile but they just got the worst ratings. It's laughable that you don't want your phone manufacturer to get into a race to the bottom but you want your carrier to do just that.
Maybe now we can start seeing mobile rates rapidly start falling to reasonable levels. Hopefully we can also force the government to remove its head from its ass, breakup the cable company monopolies, and get cable and internet service fees lowered as well, and land based internet speeds increased dramatically to competitive international levels.
As I understand it, city governments awarded licenses to cable companies to install fiber and coax throughout neighborhoods in exchange for exclusive rights to provide service to the customers in those areas. The exclusive contracts allowed the cable companies to recoup their investment over a specified number of years. In most cases the cable runs through conduits which are either under city streets or under the greenway which both actually belong to the city. After the specified length of the contract, the city would allow other providers to also pull fiber through the conduit thus offering competition. The specifics of the contract and licenses are not universal and vary from city to city. I believe the same type of agreements extend to above ground installations.
In other words, there is no oversight from any federal agency to regulate the cable industries with respect to fixed infrastructure within the cities that they serve. Net neutrality is a completely different subject and has almost nothing to do with the last mile of Internet delivery. So there is no chance that the cable companies will be broken up, as you say, unless one of them becomes a monopoly, which might be closer to happening with the TWC purchase by Comcast, but we are still a long way off from that mega-cable company becoming a monopoly.
Personally, I would like to see Apple enter this business segment and offer citywide free wifi but only to Apple devices.
As I understand it, city governments awarded licenses to cable companies to install fiber and coax throughout neighborhoods in exchange for exclusive rights to provide service to the customers in those areas. The exclusive contracts allowed the cable companies to recoup their investment over a specified number of years. In most cases the cable runs through conduits which are either under city streets or under the greenway which both actually belong to the city. After the specified length of the contract, the city would allow other providers to also pull fiber through the conduit thus offering competition. The specifics of the contract and licenses are not universal and vary from city to city. I believe the same type of agreements extend to above ground installations.
In other words, there is no oversight from any federal agency to regulate the cable industries with respect to fixed infrastructure within the cities that they serve. Net neutrality is a completely different subject and has almost nothing to do with the last mile of Internet delivery. So there is no chance that the cable companies will be broken up, as you say, unless one of them becomes a monopoly, which might be closer to happening with the TWC purchase by Comcast, but we are still a long way off from that mega-cable company becoming a monopoly.
Personally, I would like to see Apple enter this business segment and offer citywide free wifi but only to Apple devices.
I'm trying to imagine the shitstorm that would ensue if Apple did that, and I am finding my imagination lacking in this case.
Poles are shared, but underground conduits are not.
As I said, the arrangements vary from city to city. In the case of Irvine, California, Cox, and AT&T share the underground conduits. Other parts of OC also allow sharing of conduits by TWC and Verizon. The conduits, in most cases, are owned by the cities even though they were installed at the expense of a primary cable company. I have no first hand information about other areas of the country.
Maybe now we can start seeing mobile rates rapidly start falling to reasonable levels. Hopefully we can also force the government to remove its head from its ass, breakup the cable company monopolies, and get cable and internet service fees lowered as well, and land based internet speeds increased dramatically to competitive international levels.
Why would the government break up a monopoly that they awarded in the first place? What's a reasonable level? Everyone is applauding T-Mobile but they just got the worst ratings. It's laughable that you don't want your phone manufacturer to get into a race to the bottom but you want your carrier to do just that.
"Race to the bottom".
You're kidding, right? Where do you think ALL cell carriers are right now? The only direction there is (for any of them) is up.
Move out of the sticks. I get great service.
If you travel at all, you will realize how crummy American cellular service is.
American mobile operators are absolutely appalling. Same with our landline broadband Internet providers (DSL, cable). Atrocious and over-priced.
The incompetence of American telecommunications/Internet providers is similar to the ineptitude of American public transit operators. New York is the sole exception, public transit in the rest of America is essentially an embarrassment.
But hey, at least we have great junk food, auto air conditioners, and reality TV.
American mobile operators are absolutely appalling.
One of the main problems with US mobile networks is the enormous user base coupled with very limited cell tower capacity. The fact that getting tower locations approved has become so difficult means that at peak hours, you can't even load a web page over cell. The user base has far outpaced the infrastructure capabilities. The situation is not likely to improve anytime soon due to installation costs, zoning and regulations. In other parts of the world carriers are able to install adequate tower locations.
Cellular technology works on a hexagon where a user is supposed to be served by a minimum of three towers, Unfortunately, in many US urban areas, the user is being served by a single tower which sort of defeats the principle of cells. I don't see things improving any time soon. In my other country, the Republic of Panama, the cell network is much better than the US, but we have unsightly towers all over the place. It is sort of a trade off between quality of neighborhood life and quality of cell service.
We've heard these same bs arguments for way too long. They're getting tired and old.
Frankly, the quality is pretty mediocre even in dense population corridors such as the Boston-DC and LA-SF (which are more similar to European urban agglomerations than some Iowa cornfield that stretches from here to forever).
The simple problem we have is low expectations.
We've heard these same bs arguments for way too long. They're getting tired and old.
Frankly, the quality is pretty mediocre even in dense population corridors such as the Boston-DC and LA-SF (which are more similar to European urban agglomerations than some Iowa cornfield that stretches from here to forever).
The simple problem we have is low expectations.
True. And it holds for our infrastructure as a whole -- tech or non-tech. Everything from our cell system to our bridges to you-name-it is awful. Too many people have been convinced that this is just the way things are gonna be, and there's nothing to be done about it. So they have, as you say, low expectations.
People complain about un- or low employment? Put the damn country to work fixing the effin' infrastructure! Will it cost money? Yes. Will it put people to work? Yes. Will those people then have money to put back into the economy AND pay more taxes? Yes.
Ugh. I'm going to stop now, before I get into full rant mode.
We've heard these same bs arguments for way too long. They're getting tired and old.
Frankly, the quality is pretty mediocre even in dense population corridors such as the Boston-DC and LA-SF (which are more similar to European urban agglomerations than some Iowa cornfield that stretches from here to forever).
The simple problem we have is low expectations.
I am basing my comments on a few insider information sources. One is a close friend who has a business that does nothing but do simulations for cell carriers to show visual representations of what a tower might look like in a given location to assist in negotiations with land owners to allow the construction. And another source of information is another friend who owns some property in San Diego County where AT&T is paying him more than $20,000 a month to locate a tower on his land. The arguments may be old but you can look on various web sites to see where the towers are and try to figure out where more towers can be placed. In California the towers have to be disguised as palm trees or pine trees and it is not at all simple to get them approved. Argue all you want about other parts of the US but I know what I'm talking about in SoCal.
"Race to the bottom".
You're kidding, right? Where do you think ALL cell carriers are right now? The only direction there is (for any of them) is up.
Move out of the sticks. I get great service.
I assume by "the sticks", you mean the U.S.?
Anywhere that has more trees than people is "the sticks".
I assume by "the sticks", you mean the U.S.?
Anywhere that has more trees than people is "the sticks".
More BS.
In the US there are approximately 247 billion trees. The population of the US is 314 million
You must live in New Jersey.
More BS.
In the US there are approximately 247 billion trees. The population of the US is 314 million
You must live in New Jersey.
There are definitely places, though, where there are fewer trees than people. Heck, I lived in one of those places for a year: Tempe, AZ. There were probably more people in my dorm* than there were trees in all of Tempe.
* = my dorm had 15 floors, btw.
There's a tech called pCell (was DIDO) that may offer a solution. I tried to create an AI discussion pn another thread:
Check out some of the posts for more info!
Moreover, my 5-star hotel (Four Seasons Buenos Aires) charges $20/day for Premium Internet Wifi, which amounts to 1.4Mbps up and down. I would hate to think what the standard internet wifi speed would be.