It is simply mind boggling to me that people are so clueless about how cell phone companies have ALWAYS worked.
It's mind boggling what an apologist you are.
Quote:
How did you get by before the iphone came out? did you not have a cell phone? did you just take whatever the cheapest phone was? do you understand WHY that phone was free when you bought it.
I have a RAZR. I had a moto e815 before, which I had to replace. It cost me $175, so I don't want to hear about "free."
It's always been this way with cell carriers... nothing is different,[/quote]
$20 a month for similar service capability is different.
Quote:
they are not over charging you for the iphone,
No one said they were. But Apple is advertising a price that is fiction for some people.
Quote:
they actually GAVE YOU A BREAK on the fees of the first iPhone cause the price was so much and becuase you were using an outdated wireless technology.
$60 a month was a "break?" What is outdated wireless technology? The phone wasn't subsidized and it was a brand new product. That's why it cost so much. ATT&T didn't give anyone a "break." Jesus.
Quote:
now that you are using a phone with technology that's actually relevant, they will charge the the going rate for a plan. instead of bitching on the internet, how about thanking AT&T for giving you a $10 break on monthly data fees
So the iPhone is the only "relevant" phone? And pssst: It's not the "going rate" at all. Can you read? It's more than the going rate.
Quote:
Yes it will cost more than 10 bucks to add to your family plan... you are also getting unlimited data that you don't get when you added a 10 dollar line before... comparing the prices to your razr from 5 years ago is ridiculous.
Did someone do that?
Quote:
I mean... someone said "I used to pay 5 bucks a month for data, but I had to use my plan minutes..." really? in 1998? and you want AT&T to continue that pricing scheme?
jeeze. I'm glad I don't work at AT&T... I'd hate to deal with any of the cluelessness on the 11th.
That quote was from me....and it was LAST YEAR, champ. Now, the data wasn't unlimited technically...it did use my plan minutes. But I could use my e815 as a wireless modem over VZW broadband....all for about $55 a month. If it was an evening or weekend, the minutes weren't an issue at all. In fact, I don't think it actually did use the minutes.
I'm glad you don't work at AT&T too...you'd be even more of an apologist. I'm no stranger to paying for quality, but AT&T and Apple are bending their customers over on this one. It's significantly more money with less product included. You can spin it any way you'd like...it still sucks.
I do. Where I don't want to live is in a country where the common man has no voice and big corporations use illegal practices to squeeze out more profit.
You'll have to excuse me, I never saw the statute that outlawed raising the price of a popular, discretionary good. What a bunch of crybabies.
You act like everyone has e-mail capabilities on their phone. The whole appeal of SMS is that everyone can receive them on their phones wherever they are. With your theory... how about everyone just e-mails instead of calls?
Yes, but doesn't that still use your carriers towers? I never used the ichat text feature... but it asked me to type in my phone number and that's when i realized that it still uses my phone line i think... anyone know for sure? This would be an awesome solution if otherwise... how would they reply?
Heh, no, it doesn't use your carrier's towers. People reply back just as if they were typing on their computer. And this is not an iChat feature - on AIM you can add a new buddy by number by adding "+1999-999-9999" where the 9s are the number, and your chat messages will go to their phone as txts. I can never understand why I'm the only person I know who does this, it's so easy.
What about the $10 a month increase? Is that reasonable? I don't think it is. And no, I don't want to hear about a 3G premium either. That's total bullshit. The whole world is running 3G at this point. It's not some Super Premium Feature? that no one else has.
Then I'm sure you're glad to hear that the price increase gets the price of the service ($30) into line with all the other unlimited 3G services out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
I wouldn't be surprised to see lawsuits over this, nor will I be surprised when AT&T reinstates the 200 SMS with the base plan.
Boy I hope lots of people do sue over it, and I hope they lose their homes as a result of all the legal fees they have to pay for the frivolous suit.
I don't want to live in a country where a company can be sued for setting a price (no matter how crazy) for its goods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I do. Where I don't want to live is in a country where the common man has no voice and big corporations use illegal practices to squeeze out more profit.
What's 'illegal' about this??? Here's an interesting article on this from today which illustrates its far from collusion of any kind (at least wrt to SMS) pricing changes were months apart and the companies clearly saw no movement of customers to compensate so the value of the service was re-established. Don't think it has value don't buy it. Its a totally discretionary service.
You're missing the point. The implication was that I should be happy to pay $20 more a month. One of the reasons given was the 3G network. And really...there clearly IS a premium. How else does one explain the increase?
The premium over the previous plan is $10 a month for data or $15 a month is include the SMS from the previous individual plan. Just as you can't blame AT&T or Apple for making you terminate your VZW plan early to get an iPhone you can't call it an AT&T premium just because you are paying less with a different plan on a different carrier.
As for the cost, the iPhone is also being sold at half the price than previously and AT&T has done a bang up job to get decent 3G coverage with good speeds over the past year. Both the subsidy and the network upgrade cost AT&T.
If your current plan gives you data for less money and you are stuck with a early termination fee then it sounds like you should stay with VZW.
What's 'illegal' about this??? Here's an interesting article on this from today which illustrates its far from collusion of any kind (at least wrt to SMS) pricing changes were months apart and the companies clearly saw no movement of customers to compensate so the value of the service was re-established. Don't think it has value don't buy it. Its a totally discretionary service.
This wasn't about what is legal or illegal, Cameronj stated that he didn't want to live in a country where companies could be held accountable for practices deemed illegal by setting prices a certain way. For example, that would mean Microsoft was in the right and Netscape was wrong. And this presumably means that ticket scalpers can also take advantage of people without fear.
This wasn't about what is legal or illegal, Cameronj stated that he didn't want to live in a country where companies could be held accountable for practices deemed illegal by setting prices a certain way. For example, that would mean Microsoft was in the right and Netscape was wrong. And this presumably means that ticket scalpers can also take advantage of people without fear.
Interesting words you put in my mouth.
Which is the monopolist, ATT wireless or Apple?
And I really can't believe someone would use ticket scalping as an example of a wrong that needs to righted by the government. Yeah, I'd much rather have to wait in line for 2 days for good concert tickets than be able to buy them openly for 3 times the face value. Scalpers perform a good service that is rendered necessary (and illegal) by stupid laws.
This wasn't about what is legal or illegal, Cameronj stated that he didn't want to live in a country where companies could be held accountable for practices deemed illegal by setting prices a certain way. For example, that would mean Microsoft was in the right and Netscape was wrong. And this presumably means that ticket scalpers can also take advantage of people without fear.
But, of course, that's not what he said, only what you apparently read into it.
Quote:
I don't want to live in a country where a company can be sued for setting a price (no matter how crazy) for its goods.
But, of course, that's not what he said, only what you apparently read into it.
Quote:
I don't want to live in a country
where a company can be sued
for setting a price
(no matter how crazy) for its goods.
MS set a price of zero for a good called IE. Hence Cameron doesn't want to live in the US because companies can and have been sued for setting the price of goods in ways are deemed illegal.
What part of Cameron's sentence did I fudge? Or is the use of your words in a context outside a magically implied scope not previously represented.
There are no statues, but there are plenty of books that govern the way companies can do business.
MS set a price of zero for a good called IE. Hence Cameron doesn't want to live in the US because companies can and have been sued for setting the price of goods in ways are deemed illegal.
What part of Cameron's sentence did I fudge? Or is the use of your words in a context outside a magically implied scope not previously represented.
There are no statues, but there are plenty of books that govern the way companies can do business.
You fudged the fact that we are not talking about a monopolist here. Apple is not accused (except by crazies and loons) of doing anything illegal. Impoverished technology fans who can't afford another $10 a month are the only outraged parties.
Socialists will resort to all kind of tricks to try to be correct, but a world governed by the laws you prefer would be like Soviet Russia. Solipism could write a book on the topic.
"Solipism: In philosophy, a view that maintains that the self is the only thing that can be known to exist. It is an extreme form of scepticism. The solipsist sees himself or herself as the only individual in existence, assuming other people to be a reflection of his or her own consciousness."
You fudged the fact that we are not talking about a monopolist here.
Socialists will resort to all kind of tricks to try to be correct, but a world governed by the laws you prefer would be like Soviet Russia.
You never stated that monopolies were excluded. In fact you qualified your response with "(no matter how crazy)" which implies that there are no 'ifs, ands, or buts' in your statement. Also, and probably most damning of all, I believe an illegal monopoly can only be decided in a court of law so how could a company be declared as such if no company could be taken to court for it's prices? I guess they could be sued for other reasons not related to price but that doesn't make much sense since when it's the price set by illegal monopolies for which they are sued.
I'm appalled at the arrogance of these phone companies - AT&T in particular. What better way to say "f**k you" to your existing, paying, loyal customers. You're not "eligible" for an upgrade? WTF is that? I'm signing, agreeing, committing to an additional 2 years of PAYING YOU and you want to nickle and dime me on the hardware?
I'm glad I'm eligible, but if I wasn't, Apple would be loosing another iPhone sale. AT&T is greed. Pure and simple.
THANK YOU.... so much dude you hit the nail on head. Technically I'm not eligible until June '09. I thought I could over ride my contract now since I was signing another 2 years.... Makes no sense what so ever
You never stated that monopolies were excluded. In fact you qualified your response with "(no matter how crazy)" which implies that there are no 'ifs, ands, or buts' in your statement. Also, and probably most damning of all, I believe an illegal monopoly can only be decided in a court of law so how could a company be declared as such if no company could be taken to court for it's prices? I guess they could be sued for other reasons not related to price but that doesn't make much sense since when it's the price set by illegal monopolies for which they are sued.
You're right! Wow, amazing. I never said monopolies were excluded. For the record, I also didn't exclude the living dead, felons selling cable box descramblers, Martians operating a business without a green card or talking lampshades. I'd like to formally include those now, I hope you'll allow it.
Just so we're clear, are you implying that Apple or ATT SHOULD be found to be an illegal monopoly because they raised the price of your text messages?
I still stand by my statement that I wish I didn't have to share this country with people who think the way you do. Thank god you're a fringe minority or god forbid, you might have some political sway. As it is no matter how shrill, your whining goes unheeded.
well, $20 a month over 24 months is $480, so if the price difference of getting an iphone 3G w/o the contract extension is less than that, you can probably fly under the radar and keep your plan. If your phone is 3G capable, i doubt that they would be able to restrict your account's individual access to 3G if you had it enabled on your phone.
I don't know if that'll work. It will depend on the difference between the 499 iPhone for non-upgrade accounts and iPhones that will be even more expensive if you want it without the contract... We'll have to see...
I'm appalled at the arrogance of these phone companies - AT&T in particular. What better way to say "f**k you" to your existing, paying, loyal customers. You're not "eligible" for an upgrade? WTF is that? I'm signing, agreeing, committing to an additional 2 years of PAYING YOU and you want to nickle and dime me on the hardware?
I'm glad I'm eligible, but if I wasn't, Apple would be loosing another iPhone sale. AT&T is greed. Pure and simple.
THANK YOU.... so much dude you hit the nail on head. Technically I'm not eligible until June '09. I thought I could over ride my contract now since I was signing another 2 years.... Makes no sense what so ever.
This was explained earlier. AT&T needs to make sure they can recover the cost of a subsidized phone. People would abuse the system if they could jump from subsidized phone to subsidized phone. The carrier would be unable to recover the expense of subsidizing in the first place. Which would impact revenues and stock price.
MS set a price of zero for a good called IE. Hence Cameron doesn't want to live in the US because companies can and have been sued for setting the price of goods in ways are deemed illegal.
What part of Cameron's sentence did I fudge? Or is the use of your words in a context outside a magically implied scope not previously represented.
There are no statues, but there are plenty of books that govern the way companies can do business.
And none of them [laws/books whatever you're referring to] directly govern setting prices however you like. Now, if other illegal actions (such as monopolistic practices) allow you to artificially set prices then those practices can be challenged. As the article I posted (if you bothered to read it) demonstrates, SMS pricing actions are not being taken in a monopolistic or collusive environment as demonstrated by the lack of coordination between the timing of the raising of prices. Its simply that the price/value of SMS is, apparently, higher than it was (and probably is) currently being charged. Why, I have no idea as I believe they are worthless . Its a mistake to assume that cost determines price. Its value and competition that determines price. Cost just determines if a product or service can be produced and delivered for its perceived value.
As the article I posted (if you bothered to read it) demonstrates, SMS pricing actions are not being taken in a monopolistic or collusive environment as demonstrated by the lack of coordination between the timing of the raising of prices. Its simply that the price/value of SMS is, apparently, higher than it was (and probably is) currently being charged. Why, I have no idea as I believe they are worthless .
"Last October, Sprint Nextel was the first to introduce the new price of 20 cents per text message. AT&T and Verizon Wireless soon followed with their price hikes going into effect this spring. And this week Engadget reported that T-Mobile USA will match the other big three wireless operators in jacking up SMS texting rates to 20 cents per message. The price increase goes into effect August 29."
"The reason that carriers are charging so much for text messages is because they can. Even at 15 cents and 20 cents a pop, people are willing to pay for it. The carriers are also trying to get consumers to sign up for text messaging packages and unlimited plans that vary in price from $5 a month extra for 200 messages to $20 a month extra for unlimited texting on AT&T's network, for example."
Crazy. 20 cents a pop will really shut down a lot of people from txting.
"Last October, Sprint Nextel was the first to introduce the new price of 20 cents per text message. AT&T and Verizon Wireless soon followed with their price hikes going into effect this spring. And this week Engadget reported that T-Mobile USA will match the other big three wireless operators in jacking up SMS texting rates to 20 cents per message. The price increase goes into effect August 29."
"The reason that carriers are charging so much for text messages is because they can. Even at 15 cents and 20 cents a pop, people are willing to pay for it. The carriers are also trying to get consumers to sign up for text messaging packages and unlimited plans that vary in price from $5 a month extra for 200 messages to $20 a month extra for unlimited texting on AT&T's network, for example."
Crazy. 20 cents a pop will really shut down a lot of people from txting.
Maybe this will help get more phone manufacturers to improve their OS and add more IM applications that uses wireless internet instead of using a 15 year old technology.
Comments
It is simply mind boggling to me that people are so clueless about how cell phone companies have ALWAYS worked.
It's mind boggling what an apologist you are.
How did you get by before the iphone came out? did you not have a cell phone? did you just take whatever the cheapest phone was? do you understand WHY that phone was free when you bought it.
I have a RAZR. I had a moto e815 before, which I had to replace. It cost me $175, so I don't want to hear about "free."
It's always been this way with cell carriers... nothing is different,[/quote]
$20 a month for similar service capability is different.
they are not over charging you for the iphone,
No one said they were. But Apple is advertising a price that is fiction for some people.
they actually GAVE YOU A BREAK on the fees of the first iPhone cause the price was so much and becuase you were using an outdated wireless technology.
now that you are using a phone with technology that's actually relevant, they will charge the the going rate for a plan. instead of bitching on the internet, how about thanking AT&T for giving you a $10 break on monthly data fees
So the iPhone is the only "relevant" phone? And pssst: It's not the "going rate" at all. Can you read? It's more than the going rate.
Yes it will cost more than 10 bucks to add to your family plan... you are also getting unlimited data that you don't get when you added a 10 dollar line before... comparing the prices to your razr from 5 years ago is ridiculous.
Did someone do that?
I mean... someone said "I used to pay 5 bucks a month for data, but I had to use my plan minutes..." really? in 1998? and you want AT&T to continue that pricing scheme?
jeeze. I'm glad I don't work at AT&T... I'd hate to deal with any of the cluelessness on the 11th.
That quote was from me....and it was LAST YEAR, champ. Now, the data wasn't unlimited technically...it did use my plan minutes. But I could use my e815 as a wireless modem over VZW broadband....all for about $55 a month. If it was an evening or weekend, the minutes weren't an issue at all. In fact, I don't think it actually did use the minutes.
I'm glad you don't work at AT&T too...you'd be even more of an apologist. I'm no stranger to paying for quality, but AT&T and Apple are bending their customers over on this one. It's significantly more money with less product included. You can spin it any way you'd like...it still sucks.
I do. Where I don't want to live is in a country where the common man has no voice and big corporations use illegal practices to squeeze out more profit.
You'll have to excuse me, I never saw the statute that outlawed raising the price of a popular, discretionary good. What a bunch of crybabies.
You act like everyone has e-mail capabilities on their phone. The whole appeal of SMS is that everyone can receive them on their phones wherever they are. With your theory... how about everyone just e-mails instead of calls?
Yes, but doesn't that still use your carriers towers? I never used the ichat text feature... but it asked me to type in my phone number and that's when i realized that it still uses my phone line i think... anyone know for sure? This would be an awesome solution if otherwise... how would they reply?
Heh, no, it doesn't use your carrier's towers. People reply back just as if they were typing on their computer. And this is not an iChat feature - on AIM you can add a new buddy by number by adding "+1999-999-9999" where the 9s are the number, and your chat messages will go to their phone as txts. I can never understand why I'm the only person I know who does this, it's so easy.
What about the $10 a month increase? Is that reasonable? I don't think it is. And no, I don't want to hear about a 3G premium either. That's total bullshit. The whole world is running 3G at this point. It's not some Super Premium Feature? that no one else has.
Then I'm sure you're glad to hear that the price increase gets the price of the service ($30) into line with all the other unlimited 3G services out there.
I wouldn't be surprised to see lawsuits over this, nor will I be surprised when AT&T reinstates the 200 SMS with the base plan.
Boy I hope lots of people do sue over it, and I hope they lose their homes as a result of all the legal fees they have to pay for the frivolous suit.
Originally Posted by cameronj
I don't want to live in a country where a company can be sued for setting a price (no matter how crazy) for its goods.
I do. Where I don't want to live is in a country where the common man has no voice and big corporations use illegal practices to squeeze out more profit.
What's 'illegal' about this??? Here's an interesting article on this from today which illustrates its far from collusion of any kind (at least wrt to SMS) pricing changes were months apart and the companies clearly saw no movement of customers to compensate so the value of the service was re-established. Don't think it has value don't buy it. Its a totally discretionary service.
SMS rate hikes
You're missing the point. The implication was that I should be happy to pay $20 more a month. One of the reasons given was the 3G network. And really...there clearly IS a premium. How else does one explain the increase?
The premium over the previous plan is $10 a month for data or $15 a month is include the SMS from the previous individual plan. Just as you can't blame AT&T or Apple for making you terminate your VZW plan early to get an iPhone you can't call it an AT&T premium just because you are paying less with a different plan on a different carrier.
As for the cost, the iPhone is also being sold at half the price than previously and AT&T has done a bang up job to get decent 3G coverage with good speeds over the past year. Both the subsidy and the network upgrade cost AT&T.
If your current plan gives you data for less money and you are stuck with a early termination fee then it sounds like you should stay with VZW.
What's 'illegal' about this??? Here's an interesting article on this from today which illustrates its far from collusion of any kind (at least wrt to SMS) pricing changes were months apart and the companies clearly saw no movement of customers to compensate so the value of the service was re-established. Don't think it has value don't buy it. Its a totally discretionary service.
SMS rate hikes
This wasn't about what is legal or illegal, Cameronj stated that he didn't want to live in a country where companies could be held accountable for practices deemed illegal by setting prices a certain way. For example, that would mean Microsoft was in the right and Netscape was wrong. And this presumably means that ticket scalpers can also take advantage of people without fear.
This wasn't about what is legal or illegal, Cameronj stated that he didn't want to live in a country where companies could be held accountable for practices deemed illegal by setting prices a certain way. For example, that would mean Microsoft was in the right and Netscape was wrong. And this presumably means that ticket scalpers can also take advantage of people without fear.
Interesting words you put in my mouth.
Which is the monopolist, ATT wireless or Apple?
And I really can't believe someone would use ticket scalping as an example of a wrong that needs to righted by the government. Yeah, I'd much rather have to wait in line for 2 days for good concert tickets than be able to buy them openly for 3 times the face value. Scalpers perform a good service that is rendered necessary (and illegal) by stupid laws.
This wasn't about what is legal or illegal, Cameronj stated that he didn't want to live in a country where companies could be held accountable for practices deemed illegal by setting prices a certain way. For example, that would mean Microsoft was in the right and Netscape was wrong. And this presumably means that ticket scalpers can also take advantage of people without fear.
But, of course, that's not what he said, only what you apparently read into it.
I don't want to live in a country where a company can be sued for setting a price (no matter how crazy) for its goods.
Interesting words you put in my mouth.
Which is the monopolist, ATT wireless or Apple?
But, of course, that's not what he said, only what you apparently read into it.
I don't want to live in a country
where a company can be sued
for setting a price
(no matter how crazy) for its goods.
MS set a price of zero for a good called IE. Hence Cameron doesn't want to live in the US because companies can and have been sued for setting the price of goods in ways are deemed illegal.
What part of Cameron's sentence did I fudge? Or is the use of your words in a context outside a magically implied scope not previously represented.
There are no statues, but there are plenty of books that govern the way companies can do business.
MS set a price of zero for a good called IE. Hence Cameron doesn't want to live in the US because companies can and have been sued for setting the price of goods in ways are deemed illegal.
What part of Cameron's sentence did I fudge? Or is the use of your words in a context outside a magically implied scope not previously represented.
There are no statues, but there are plenty of books that govern the way companies can do business.
You fudged the fact that we are not talking about a monopolist here. Apple is not accused (except by crazies and loons) of doing anything illegal. Impoverished technology fans who can't afford another $10 a month are the only outraged parties.
Socialists will resort to all kind of tricks to try to be correct, but a world governed by the laws you prefer would be like Soviet Russia. Solipism could write a book on the topic.
"Solipism: In philosophy, a view that maintains that the self is the only thing that can be known to exist. It is an extreme form of scepticism. The solipsist sees himself or herself as the only individual in existence, assuming other people to be a reflection of his or her own consciousness."
You fudged the fact that we are not talking about a monopolist here.
Socialists will resort to all kind of tricks to try to be correct, but a world governed by the laws you prefer would be like Soviet Russia.
You never stated that monopolies were excluded. In fact you qualified your response with "(no matter how crazy)" which implies that there are no 'ifs, ands, or buts' in your statement. Also, and probably most damning of all, I believe an illegal monopoly can only be decided in a court of law so how could a company be declared as such if no company could be taken to court for it's prices? I guess they could be sued for other reasons not related to price but that doesn't make much sense since when it's the price set by illegal monopolies for which they are sued.
I'm appalled at the arrogance of these phone companies - AT&T in particular. What better way to say "f**k you" to your existing, paying, loyal customers. You're not "eligible" for an upgrade? WTF is that? I'm signing, agreeing, committing to an additional 2 years of PAYING YOU and you want to nickle and dime me on the hardware?
I'm glad I'm eligible, but if I wasn't, Apple would be loosing another iPhone sale. AT&T is greed. Pure and simple.
THANK YOU.... so much dude you hit the nail on head. Technically I'm not eligible until June '09. I thought I could over ride my contract now since I was signing another 2 years.... Makes no sense what so ever
You never stated that monopolies were excluded. In fact you qualified your response with "(no matter how crazy)" which implies that there are no 'ifs, ands, or buts' in your statement. Also, and probably most damning of all, I believe an illegal monopoly can only be decided in a court of law so how could a company be declared as such if no company could be taken to court for it's prices? I guess they could be sued for other reasons not related to price but that doesn't make much sense since when it's the price set by illegal monopolies for which they are sued.
You're right! Wow, amazing. I never said monopolies were excluded. For the record, I also didn't exclude the living dead, felons selling cable box descramblers, Martians operating a business without a green card or talking lampshades. I'd like to formally include those now, I hope you'll allow it.
Just so we're clear, are you implying that Apple or ATT SHOULD be found to be an illegal monopoly because they raised the price of your text messages?
I still stand by my statement that I wish I didn't have to share this country with people who think the way you do. Thank god you're a fringe minority or god forbid, you might have some political sway. As it is no matter how shrill, your whining goes unheeded.
well, $20 a month over 24 months is $480, so if the price difference of getting an iphone 3G w/o the contract extension is less than that, you can probably fly under the radar and keep your plan. If your phone is 3G capable, i doubt that they would be able to restrict your account's individual access to 3G if you had it enabled on your phone.
I don't know if that'll work. It will depend on the difference between the 499 iPhone for non-upgrade accounts and iPhones that will be even more expensive if you want it without the contract... We'll have to see...
I'm appalled at the arrogance of these phone companies - AT&T in particular. What better way to say "f**k you" to your existing, paying, loyal customers. You're not "eligible" for an upgrade? WTF is that? I'm signing, agreeing, committing to an additional 2 years of PAYING YOU and you want to nickle and dime me on the hardware?
I'm glad I'm eligible, but if I wasn't, Apple would be loosing another iPhone sale. AT&T is greed. Pure and simple.
THANK YOU.... so much dude you hit the nail on head. Technically I'm not eligible until June '09. I thought I could over ride my contract now since I was signing another 2 years.... Makes no sense what so ever.
This was explained earlier. AT&T needs to make sure they can recover the cost of a subsidized phone. People would abuse the system if they could jump from subsidized phone to subsidized phone. The carrier would be unable to recover the expense of subsidizing in the first place. Which would impact revenues and stock price.
MS set a price of zero for a good called IE. Hence Cameron doesn't want to live in the US because companies can and have been sued for setting the price of goods in ways are deemed illegal.
What part of Cameron's sentence did I fudge? Or is the use of your words in a context outside a magically implied scope not previously represented.
There are no statues, but there are plenty of books that govern the way companies can do business.
And none of them [laws/books whatever you're referring to] directly govern setting prices however you like. Now, if other illegal actions (such as monopolistic practices) allow you to artificially set prices then those practices can be challenged. As the article I posted (if you bothered to read it) demonstrates, SMS pricing actions are not being taken in a monopolistic or collusive environment as demonstrated by the lack of coordination between the timing of the raising of prices. Its simply that the price/value of SMS is, apparently, higher than it was (and probably is) currently being charged. Why, I have no idea as I believe they are worthless
As the article I posted (if you bothered to read it) demonstrates, SMS pricing actions are not being taken in a monopolistic or collusive environment as demonstrated by the lack of coordination between the timing of the raising of prices. Its simply that the price/value of SMS is, apparently, higher than it was (and probably is) currently being charged. Why, I have no idea as I believe they are worthless
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-99...l?tag=nefd.top
"Last October, Sprint Nextel was the first to introduce the new price of 20 cents per text message. AT&T and Verizon Wireless soon followed with their price hikes going into effect this spring. And this week Engadget reported that T-Mobile USA will match the other big three wireless operators in jacking up SMS texting rates to 20 cents per message. The price increase goes into effect August 29."
"The reason that carriers are charging so much for text messages is because they can. Even at 15 cents and 20 cents a pop, people are willing to pay for it. The carriers are also trying to get consumers to sign up for text messaging packages and unlimited plans that vary in price from $5 a month extra for 200 messages to $20 a month extra for unlimited texting on AT&T's network, for example."
Crazy. 20 cents a pop will really shut down a lot of people from txting.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-99...l?tag=nefd.top
"Last October, Sprint Nextel was the first to introduce the new price of 20 cents per text message. AT&T and Verizon Wireless soon followed with their price hikes going into effect this spring. And this week Engadget reported that T-Mobile USA will match the other big three wireless operators in jacking up SMS texting rates to 20 cents per message. The price increase goes into effect August 29."
"The reason that carriers are charging so much for text messages is because they can. Even at 15 cents and 20 cents a pop, people are willing to pay for it. The carriers are also trying to get consumers to sign up for text messaging packages and unlimited plans that vary in price from $5 a month extra for 200 messages to $20 a month extra for unlimited texting on AT&T's network, for example."
Crazy. 20 cents a pop will really shut down a lot of people from txting.
Maybe this will help get more phone manufacturers to improve their OS and add more IM applications that uses wireless internet instead of using a 15 year old technology.