Has AT&T gone stupid or what? Who the hell is going to sign up to this brain dead shared plan. The day they take away my grand fathered unlimited iPhone plan, I am out of AT&T. I have been AT&T customer for any years, even prior to iPhone, but they have consistently tried to screw me over. I am so tempting to just move to Sprint for there unlimited plan. Sure they might not have the best coverage outside of metropolitan area, but majority of my time usage has been in metro area.
You do realize that it is only 3G capable. And you will have to fork over at least $550 for the iPhone.
You can still save a lot of money with a prepaid plan, even paying up front for the phone. For example, take the $45 Straight Talk plan, which works on AT&T's towers -- unlimited talk, text, and I think about 2 GB data before you get cut off:
$649 phone + $15 SIM + ($45 * 24) plan + average 6.5% sales tax on all purchases = $1,857 over two years.
Compare that to the similar offering from AT&T, which is $70 for unlimited talk, $20 for text and $25 for 2 GB data, for a total of $115 per month:
$199 phone + $36 activation + ($115 * 24) plan + 6.5% tax on the phone and $15/mo. taxes/fees = $3,368 over two years.
Let's say you're OK with 450 minutes per month at $40 from AT&T, well, you're still gonna pay a lot more money than you would with prepaid:
$199 phone + $36 activation + ($85 * 24) plan + 6.5% tax on the phone and $12/mo. taxes/fees = $2,577 over two years.
You can still save a lot of money with a prepaid plan, even paying up front for the phone. For example, take the $45 Straight Talk plan, which works on AT&T's towers -- unlimited talk, text, and I think about 2 GB data before you get cut off:
$649 phone + $15 SIM + ($45 * 24) plan + average 6.5% sales tax on all purchases = $1,857 over two years.
Compare that to the similar offering from AT&T, which is $70 for unlimited talk, $20 for text and $25 for 2 GB data, for a total of $115 per month:
$199 phone + $36 activation + ($115 * 24) plan + 6.5% tax on the phone and $15/mo. taxes/fees = $3,368 over two years.
Let's say you're OK with 450 minutes per month at $40 from AT&T, well, you're still gonna pay a lot more money than you would with prepaid:
$199 phone + $36 activation + ($85 * 24) plan + 6.5% tax on the phone and $12/mo. taxes/fees = $2,577 over two years.
And thats if you pay Apple. You can buy brand new iPhones on Craigslist for $500 or under all day long. Got a white iPhone 4S 16gb for $420 after she broke her old one- still sealed. Opened it on the spot and it was perfect and never used.
So it gets even cheaper. Of course- my wife and I are on our company phone bill, so prices don't really bother me. :-)
And thats if you pay Apple. You can buy brand new iPhones on Craigslist for $500 or under all day long. Got a white iPhone 4S 16gb for $420 after she broke her old one- still sealed. Opened it on the spot and it was perfect and never used.
Seems a bit suspicious. How do you know it wasn't stolen?
Virgin Mobile has a $55 unlimited everything plan. So I can't be that out of my mind!
Does Virgin Mobile subsidize the cost of a new iPhone? Does Virgin Mobile have their own network? Does Virgin Mobile have the ability to invest in their infrastructure? You cannot compare them.
See, I rest my case. AT&T and Verizon are clearly gouging the public and standing in the way of innovation, progress and the public good.
You are misinformed. AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint have to build the infrastructure to support this "public spectrum". It costs billions of dollars to build towers and power and support them. They had to pay money to acquire this spectrum on top of that. Plus they give you $400 when you buy your new iPhone that they need to recover somehow.
You cannot compare a company that offers no subsidized iPhone and piggy backs off of another companies infrastructure and call the two even.
Virgin Mobile and these other carriers have a much smaller overhead and your dollars to not fund infrastructure expansion with those carriers.
Why are you paying $45 for text when you can opt for unlimited family messaging plan for everyone at $30?
Because our jobs actually require us to txt a lot to people that are not family nor on AT&T. I have to say though that since iMessage the # of actual SMS have dropped significantly, but not enough to switch to the lower 200 plan. Her dad at $5 is just the average cost of his monthly txt, he's not actually on a plan, we just pay per txt for his phone.
Because our jobs actually require us to txt a lot to people that are not family nor on AT&T. I have to say though that since iMessage the # of actual SMS have dropped significantly, but not enough to switch to the lower 200 plan. Her dad at $5 is just the average cost of his monthly txt, he's not actually on a plan, we just pay per txt for his phone.
But the unlimited texting is not just between family members, it's to everyone. My son did not send his family members all those 18,000 text messages in one month. You can save yourself a lot with that plan.
I have to say, there really is a lot of stupidity on this discussion. I have just a few things to say.
These shared data plans on both AT&T and Verizon will be great for some and not for others. Yes, of course these two companies are trying to develop a pricing model that will allow them to grow their average revenue per user - they are profit making companies. They aren't charities or government agencies. A lot of the people on here seem to have the same attitude that much of the American public has when it comes to taxes and government services - they want all of the benefits and perks of services, but they don't want to pay for it. AT&T and Verizon have shareholders and they are expected to deliver profits for them - sometimes that coincides with what is best for the consumer and sometimes it doesn't. Particularly with U.S. cell phone market becoming saturated (who doesn't have at least a regular cell phone), these companies have to find new ways to grow their revenue - that's called capitalism. In a free market, you have a choice if you don't like it - take your money elsewhere.
If you don't like what AT&T and Verizon are offering, there are a number of other providers out there to choose from. The cell phone industry isn't a perfectly free market (few industries are) because you do have government regulation and they are, at the end of the day, telecommunications company. Historically, the telecom industry has not exactly been the most competitive, but I think you would be hard pressed to find a time in American history where it has been as competitive as it is today. You have so many options. You can choose traditional land lines from a telephone company, VOIP lines from cable providers, cell phones, online services like skype, etc. At the end of the day, many of us choose AT&T or Verizon because we want wireless service on our smartphone and we want good nationwide coverage. Do you pay a premium for their service over say, T-mobile or Sprint? Yes, but its up to you whether you want to pay it.
A lot of people also don't seem to realize the difference between cell phone providers that have their own network of cell phone towers and those that just roam on other networks. AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-mobile and, to a more limited degree, a couple of other small players actually maintain their own nationwide network of cell phone towers. Providers like StraightTalk simply buy the ability for their phones to roam on the towers of one of those providers. StraightTalk doesn't have to invest in infrastructure the way the other providers do. It does cost money to maintain a wireless network infrastructure. Cell phone towers don't go up for free - do a search of Google news articles and you will just how difficult it is for these providers to even put up a cell phone tower in a lot of areas. The NIMBY attitute is alive and well in America - again, we want the cell phone service, get angry when it isn't available, and then throw a tantrum the minute AT&T or Verizon want to put up a cell phone tower in our neighborhood. Furthermore, Verizon and AT&T have a more extensive nationwide network than any other carrier. You probably don't realize it, but if you go to a place like Montana or Wyoming, Sprint and T-mobile have zero cell phone towers - the only reason you can get service with those providers in those areas is because they are roaming on Verizon or AT&T's towers. It isn't cheap to maintain a nationwide network, particular in both dense, urban areas like NYC or sparsely populated rural areas like Montana.
So, if you don't like the new plans - fine, switch to someone else. But give me a break when talking about AT&T or Verizon as these greedy, corporate titans that are only interested in stealing your money. Yes, they want to make a profit, as any corporation in America does, but they are also providing a service that is expensive to provide - the telecom industry is a capital intensive industry and always has been. They can't just give it away.
Seems a bit suspicious. How do you know it wasn't stolen?
She and her friend had each upgraded and each had a receipt. They wanted $500 originally, and I talked them down because they sounded desperate. They did look like they were gonna spend it on booze and tattoos though . But $500 is easy to find. Some people don't mind dumb phones- sign up for the upgrade and then sell the phones. $300 is a lot to some people.... I don't understand it, but who am I to argue.
I have to say, there really is a lot of stupidity on this discussion. I have just a few things to say.
These shared data plans on both AT&T and Verizon will be great for some and not for others. Yes, of course these two companies are trying to develop a pricing model that will allow them to grow their average revenue per user - they are profit making companies. They aren't charities or government agencies. A lot of the people on here seem to have the same attitude that much of the American public has when it comes to taxes and government services - they want all of the benefits and perks of services, but they don't want to pay for it. AT&T and Verizon have shareholders and they are expected to deliver profits for them - sometimes that coincides with what is best for the consumer and sometimes it doesn't. Particularly with U.S. cell phone market becoming saturated (who doesn't have at least a regular cell phone), these companies have to find new ways to grow their revenue - that's called capitalism. In a free market, you have a choice if you don't like it - take your money elsewhere.
If you don't like what AT&T and Verizon are offering, there are a number of other providers out there to choose from. The cell phone industry isn't a perfectly free market (few industries are) because you do have government regulation and they are, at the end of the day, telecommunications company. Historically, the telecom industry has not exactly been the most competitive, but I think you would be hard pressed to find a time in American history where it has been as competitive as it is today. You have so many options. You can choose traditional land lines from a telephone company, VOIP lines from cable providers, cell phones, online services like skype, etc. At the end of the day, many of us choose AT&T or Verizon because we want wireless service on our smartphone and we want good nationwide coverage. Do you pay a premium for their service over say, T-mobile or Sprint? Yes, but its up to you whether you want to pay it.
A lot of people also don't seem to realize the difference between cell phone providers that have their own network of cell phone towers and those that just roam on other networks. AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-mobile and, to a more limited degree, a couple of other small players actually maintain their own nationwide network of cell phone towers. Providers like StraightTalk simply buy the ability for their phones to roam on the towers of one of those providers. StraightTalk doesn't have to invest in infrastructure the way the other providers do. It does cost money to maintain a wireless network infrastructure. Cell phone towers don't go up for free - do a search of Google news articles and you will just how difficult it is for these providers to even put up a cell phone tower in a lot of areas. The NIMBY attitute is alive and well in America - again, we want the cell phone service, get angry when it isn't available, and then throw a tantrum the minute AT&T or Verizon want to put up a cell phone tower in our neighborhood. Furthermore, Verizon and AT&T have a more extensive nationwide network than any other carrier. You probably don't realize it, but if you go to a place like Montana or Wyoming, Sprint and T-mobile have zero cell phone towers - the only reason you can get service with those providers in those areas is because they are roaming on Verizon or AT&T's towers. It isn't cheap to maintain a nationwide network, particular in both dense, urban areas like NYC or sparsely populated rural areas like Montana.
So, if you don't like the new plans - fine, switch to someone else. But give me a break when talking about AT&T or Verizon as these greedy, corporate titans that are only interested in stealing your money. Yes, they want to make a profit, as any corporation in America does, but they are also providing a service that is expensive to provide - the telecom industry is a capital intensive industry and always has been. They can't just give it away.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you for the intelligent reply!
I have to say, there really is a lot of stupidity on this discussion. I have just a few things to say.
These shared data plans on both AT&T and Verizon will be great for some and not for others. Yes, of course these two companies are trying to develop a pricing model that will allow them to grow their average revenue per user - they are profit making companies. They aren't charities or government agencies. A lot of the people on here seem to have the same attitude that much of the American public has when it comes to taxes and government services - they want all of the benefits and perks of services, but they don't want to pay for it. AT&T and Verizon have shareholders and they are expected to deliver profits for them - sometimes that coincides with what is best for the consumer and sometimes it doesn't. Particularly with U.S. cell phone market becoming saturated (who doesn't have at least a regular cell phone), these companies have to find new ways to grow their revenue - that's called capitalism. In a free market, you have a choice if you don't like it - take your money elsewhere.
If you don't like what AT&T and Verizon are offering, there are a number of other providers out there to choose from. The cell phone industry isn't a perfectly free market (few industries are) because you do have government regulation and they are, at the end of the day, telecommunications company. Historically, the telecom industry has not exactly been the most competitive, but I think you would be hard pressed to find a time in American history where it has been as competitive as it is today. You have so many options. You can choose traditional land lines from a telephone company, VOIP lines from cable providers, cell phones, online services like skype, etc. At the end of the day, many of us choose AT&T or Verizon because we want wireless service on our smartphone and we want good nationwide coverage. Do you pay a premium for their service over say, T-mobile or Sprint? Yes, but its up to you whether you want to pay it.
A lot of people also don't seem to realize the difference between cell phone providers that have their own network of cell phone towers and those that just roam on other networks. AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-mobile and, to a more limited degree, a couple of other small players actually maintain their own nationwide network of cell phone towers. Providers like StraightTalk simply buy the ability for their phones to roam on the towers of one of those providers. StraightTalk doesn't have to invest in infrastructure the way the other providers do. It does cost money to maintain a wireless network infrastructure. Cell phone towers don't go up for free - do a search of Google news articles and you will just how difficult it is for these providers to even put up a cell phone tower in a lot of areas. The NIMBY attitute is alive and well in America - again, we want the cell phone service, get angry when it isn't available, and then throw a tantrum the minute AT&T or Verizon want to put up a cell phone tower in our neighborhood. Furthermore, Verizon and AT&T have a more extensive nationwide network than any other carrier. You probably don't realize it, but if you go to a place like Montana or Wyoming, Sprint and T-mobile have zero cell phone towers - the only reason you can get service with those providers in those areas is because they are roaming on Verizon or AT&T's towers. It isn't cheap to maintain a nationwide network, particular in both dense, urban areas like NYC or sparsely populated rural areas like Montana.
So, if you don't like the new plans - fine, switch to someone else. But give me a break when talking about AT&T or Verizon as these greedy, corporate titans that are only interested in stealing your money. Yes, they want to make a profit, as any corporation in America does, but they are also providing a service that is expensive to provide - the telecom industry is a capital intensive industry and always has been. They can't just give it away.
I don't many are calling for any sort of investigation into Verizon or AT&T or even declaring they aren't allowed to offer these plans. Many are saying simply that the prices and offerings are no longer worth tolerating for a phone subsidy or are saying they will tolerate a different phone, if tied to a service, for a more affordable service price.
Claiming MVNO's don't pay to maintain a network though is really nonsense. Neither AT&T nor Verizon nor anyone else is going to sell access to their networks for less than their own wholesale cost and part of determining that cost is factoring the price of maintaining a network. I own rental properties and the rents from them include maintenance and taxes. This would be no different.
So regardless of who you use whether they be the first party or an MVNO, you are paying to maintain the network.
The mark up on cellular service is ridiculous. That said most people buy much more than they need and are scared into paying more than they should. This happens because people subsidize new and shiny phones and because of fear of overages. Most regulated utilities do not allow the sort overages that cell companies engage in. They may charge higher rates above a certain usage level but they cannot suddenly have mark ups in the hundred to thousands of percent from prior pricing.
Where cell companies have to be careful is to profit but not be so excessive in their pursuit of profits that people call for them to be a strictly regulated public utility. No one buys excessive water or electricity because they don't sweat that their 501st gallon of water will suddenly cost more than the previous 500 combined. It is also very expensive to provide water, electricity, etc.
Again most people won't care because they are short sighted and want a shiny new phone. However as with many scenarios, technology changes and when the former technology evangelists become those heading for the exits, an inflection point can occur where the change is very sudden. I suspect this will soon be the case for cell companies but that it is also happening with "cord cutters" (of which I am one) with regard to cable and satellite.
It is clear cell companies think they can use data to dictate terms. I suspect they will soon find out otherwise.
I don't many are calling for any sort of investigation into Verizon or AT&T or even declaring they aren't allowed to offer these plans. Many are saying simply that the prices and offerings are no longer worth tolerating for a phone subsidy or are saying they will tolerate a different phone, if tied to a service, for a more affordable service price.
Claiming MVNO's don't pay to maintain a network though is really nonsense. Neither AT&T nor Verizon nor anyone else is going to sell access to their networks for less than their own wholesale cost and part of determining that cost is factoring the price of maintaining a network. I own rental properties and the rents from them include maintenance and taxes. This would be no different.
So regardless of who you use whether they be the first party or an MVNO, you are paying to maintain the network.
The mark up on cellular service is ridiculous. That said most people buy much more than they need and are scared into paying more than they should. This happens because people subsidize new and shiny phones and because of fear of overages. Most regulated utilities do not allow the sort overages that cell companies engage in. They may charge higher rates above a certain usage level but they cannot suddenly have mark ups in the hundred to thousands of percent from prior pricing.
Where cell companies have to be careful is to profit but not be so excessive in their pursuit of profits that people call for them to be a strictly regulated public utility. No one buys excessive water or electricity because they don't sweat that their 501st gallon of water will suddenly cost more than the previous 500 combined. It is also very expensive to provide water, electricity, etc.
Again most people won't care because they are short sighted and want a shiny new phone. However as with many scenarios, technology changes and when the former technology evangelists become those heading for the exits, an inflection point can occur where the change is very sudden. I suspect this will soon be the case for cell companies but that it is also happening with "cord cutters" (of which I am one) with regard to cable and satellite.
It is clear cell companies think they can use data to dictate terms. I suspect they will soon find out otherwise.
What if they offered the same plans at $20 less per month without a subsidy? Would people think that was more fair?
I don't many are calling for any sort of investigation into Verizon or AT&T or even declaring they aren't allowed to offer these plans. Many are saying simply that the prices and offerings are no longer worth tolerating for a phone subsidy or are saying they will tolerate a different phone, if tied to a service, for a more affordable service price.
Claiming MVNO's don't pay to maintain a network though is really nonsense. Neither AT&T nor Verizon nor anyone else is going to sell access to their networks for less than their own wholesale cost and part of determining that cost is factoring the price of maintaining a network. I own rental properties and the rents from them include maintenance and taxes. This would be no different.
So regardless of who you use whether they be the first party or an MVNO, you are paying to maintain the network.
The mark up on cellular service is ridiculous. That said most people buy much more than they need and are scared into paying more than they should. This happens because people subsidize new and shiny phones and because of fear of overages. Most regulated utilities do not allow the sort overages that cell companies engage in. They may charge higher rates above a certain usage level but they cannot suddenly have mark ups in the hundred to thousands of percent from prior pricing.
Where cell companies have to be careful is to profit but not be so excessive in their pursuit of profits that people call for them to be a strictly regulated public utility. No one buys excessive water or electricity because they don't sweat that their 501st gallon of water will suddenly cost more than the previous 500 combined. It is also very expensive to provide water, electricity, etc.
Again most people won't care because they are short sighted and want a shiny new phone. However as with many scenarios, technology changes and when the former technology evangelists become those heading for the exits, an inflection point can occur where the change is very sudden. I suspect this will soon be the case for cell companies but that it is also happening with "cord cutters" (of which I am one) with regard to cable and satellite.
It is clear cell companies think they can use data to dictate terms. I suspect they will soon find out otherwise.
I know people may not be calling for an investigation or saying they aren't able to offer these plans, but there does seem to be a lot of statements about how ridiculous people think these plans are and how AT&T and Verizon are charging us ridiculous amounts of money for the services they offer, and I simply don't agree. They are both charging market rates in a market that is pretty free, considering the limitations of competition in the telecom space. Is it more than Sprint, T-mobile, the MVNOs, etc? Yes, but I would argue that you get more from AT&T and Verizon - whether it is worth it is up to each individual consumer, and I suspect, at the end of the day, many of the people who grumble and complain about big bad red and big bad blue will stick with them.
I suppose I overstated that MVNOs don't have to pay anything to maintain a network but if you are going to argue that MVNOs have the same ratio of spending on infrastructure to revenue that AT&T and Verizon do, I think you're smoking something really good. Sure, AT&T and Verizon are going to charge MVNOs to use their network and some of that charge is going to be on account of network costs, but, the MVNOs do not have to deal with the actual infrastructure and ongoing maintenance. They simply get to pay to use it and if they decide to use someone elses they can stop at any time. Moreover, AT&T and Verizon will only be able to charge what the market can bear (and, in fact, are probably forced to charge less in certain instances on account of FCC regulations dictating that they can only charge to much). To use your rental property analogy, yes, the rate you charge for rent will try to take account of the cost of maintenance, but you are only going to be charge rent for what the market will bear - that may or may not adequately cover your maintenance costs. For the renter, they get to rent and leave when they are done - they don't have to worry about the long-term expenses associated with a property. AT&T and Verizon have the largest, most extensive networks in the U.S. that become more heavily utilized every year. That costs money and requires both ongoing expenses and long-term reserves. An MVNO only has to pay the rate of their current contract with AT&T or Verizon - they do not have to deal with the long-term commitment and expense of running and maintaining a cell phone network.
I'm not arguing that there isn't a significant mark-up on cellular services - yes, the amount AT&T and Verizon charge is likely far greater than what you cost them as a user. That's called making a profit. Undoubtedly, the price of cell phone service has decreased over the past 10-15 years. At the same time, what cell service provides has increased - better coverage, clearer calls, faster and faster data. The new pricing schemes may raise consumer prices in the short run, but what you pay per minute/per text/per gb of data consumed will continue to decrease over time. I simply don't see a tipping point coming very soon - all I see is increased demand for cellular data. A point of market saturation will eventually be reached and, I suppose, cell phone companies will become more like cable companies. However, unlike with cable where you can "cut the cord" and go with internet streaming for your TV needs (although, even there, you aren't going to get what you would if you paid for it - not yet, anyways), there is not yet anything you can do to ditch your cell phone. Maybe new technology will be developed that could substitute for cell service, but I don't see it yet.
Does Virgin Mobile subsidize the cost of a new iPhone? Does Virgin Mobile have their own network? Does Virgin Mobile have the ability to invest in their infrastructure? You cannot compare them.
They can be compared, you just need to account for the differences properly. Subsidy vs. no subsidy, just divide the cost of the device over two years (or whatever your expected use length would be) on an unsubsidized plan to compare to a subsidized plan.
A MVNO might not have their own infrastructure, but they are paying others for the right to use their networks. The "big" network operators also pay for the use of other networks, often smaller regional networks too.
Also, I found this gem:
"Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sprint Nextel." I think it's fair to say they have the infrastructure problem taken care of. Virgin doesn't offer roaming, which can be an issue. They offer iPhones now, so it's worth checking out.
I know people may not be calling for an investigation or saying they aren't able to offer these plans, but there does seem to be a lot of statements about how ridiculous people think these plans are and how AT&T and Verizon are charging us ridiculous amounts of money for the services they offer, and I simply don't agree. They are both charging market rates in a market that is pretty free, considering the limitations of competition in the telecom space. Is it more than Sprint, T-mobile, the MVNOs, etc? Yes, but I would argue that you get more from AT&T and Verizon - whether it is worth it is up to each individual consumer, and I suspect, at the end of the day, many of the people who grumble and complain about big bad red and big bad blue will stick with them.
It doesn't bother me what they charge - they have a right to charge whatever they want, just as I had the right to switch to Straight Talk.
What does bother me is that you're paying a higher rate because you get a subsidized phone. But once the contract is expired, your rate should drop since you've paid back the subsidy. The other thing that bothers me is how difficult they make it to unlock your phone at the end of the contract period. I spent 2 hours in the AT&T store and had to make a trip back home to get my bill (they apparently couldn't find it in their system) and then wait 3 days for the mother ship to send me an unlocking code.
You can still save a lot of money with a prepaid plan, even paying up front for the phone. For example, take the $45 Straight Talk plan, which works on AT&T's towers -- unlimited talk, text, and I think about 2 GB data before you get cut off:
They claim that data is unlimited.
The only unwritten limitation that I've seen is that if you start streaming movies and audio all the time, they might throttle it or even cut you of, but for normal data usage, you effectively have no limit.
When I see how much smartphone data costs these days, I am very glad I use a dumb phone without paying for data, plus owning an iPod Touch for most of the features I would use a smartphone for if I had one. The rising costs for mobile data is a sure cure for iPhone envy on my part.
Comments
This was never meant to save you money. The goal is to get new subscribers to pay more when they sign up.
In two years, the carriers will be lamenting grandfathered individual plans the way they lament grandfathered unlimited plans today.
Has AT&T gone stupid or what? Who the hell is going to sign up to this brain dead shared plan. The day they take away my grand fathered unlimited iPhone plan, I am out of AT&T. I have been AT&T customer for any years, even prior to iPhone, but they have consistently tried to screw me over. I am so tempting to just move to Sprint for there unlimited plan. Sure they might not have the best coverage outside of metropolitan area, but majority of my time usage has been in metro area.
That's not even a tangent, that may as well be a deliberate attempt to derail a thread. It's completely unrelated to the article.
If you can't be bothered to stay on topic, please don't post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onhka
You do realize that it is only 3G capable. And you will have to fork over at least $550 for the iPhone.
You can still save a lot of money with a prepaid plan, even paying up front for the phone. For example, take the $45 Straight Talk plan, which works on AT&T's towers -- unlimited talk, text, and I think about 2 GB data before you get cut off:
$649 phone + $15 SIM + ($45 * 24) plan + average 6.5% sales tax on all purchases = $1,857 over two years.
Compare that to the similar offering from AT&T, which is $70 for unlimited talk, $20 for text and $25 for 2 GB data, for a total of $115 per month:
$199 phone + $36 activation + ($115 * 24) plan + 6.5% tax on the phone and $15/mo. taxes/fees = $3,368 over two years.
Let's say you're OK with 450 minutes per month at $40 from AT&T, well, you're still gonna pay a lot more money than you would with prepaid:
$199 phone + $36 activation + ($85 * 24) plan + 6.5% tax on the phone and $12/mo. taxes/fees = $2,577 over two years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yadda yadda yadda
You can still save a lot of money with a prepaid plan, even paying up front for the phone. For example, take the $45 Straight Talk plan, which works on AT&T's towers -- unlimited talk, text, and I think about 2 GB data before you get cut off:
$649 phone + $15 SIM + ($45 * 24) plan + average 6.5% sales tax on all purchases = $1,857 over two years.
Compare that to the similar offering from AT&T, which is $70 for unlimited talk, $20 for text and $25 for 2 GB data, for a total of $115 per month:
$199 phone + $36 activation + ($115 * 24) plan + 6.5% tax on the phone and $15/mo. taxes/fees = $3,368 over two years.
Let's say you're OK with 450 minutes per month at $40 from AT&T, well, you're still gonna pay a lot more money than you would with prepaid:
$199 phone + $36 activation + ($85 * 24) plan + 6.5% tax on the phone and $12/mo. taxes/fees = $2,577 over two years.
And thats if you pay Apple. You can buy brand new iPhones on Craigslist for $500 or under all day long. Got a white iPhone 4S 16gb for $420 after she broke her old one- still sealed. Opened it on the spot and it was perfect and never used.
So it gets even cheaper. Of course- my wife and I are on our company phone bill, so prices don't really bother me. :-)
Seems a bit suspicious. How do you know it wasn't stolen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacVertigo
Virgin Mobile has a $55 unlimited everything plan. So I can't be that out of my mind!
Does Virgin Mobile subsidize the cost of a new iPhone? Does Virgin Mobile have their own network? Does Virgin Mobile have the ability to invest in their infrastructure? You cannot compare them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
See, I rest my case. AT&T and Verizon are clearly gouging the public and standing in the way of innovation, progress and the public good.
You are misinformed. AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint have to build the infrastructure to support this "public spectrum". It costs billions of dollars to build towers and power and support them. They had to pay money to acquire this spectrum on top of that. Plus they give you $400 when you buy your new iPhone that they need to recover somehow.
You cannot compare a company that offers no subsidized iPhone and piggy backs off of another companies infrastructure and call the two even.
Virgin Mobile and these other carriers have a much smaller overhead and your dollars to not fund infrastructure expansion with those carriers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by filburt
Why are you paying $45 for text when you can opt for unlimited family messaging plan for everyone at $30?
Because our jobs actually require us to txt a lot to people that are not family nor on AT&T. I have to say though that since iMessage the # of actual SMS have dropped significantly, but not enough to switch to the lower 200 plan. Her dad at $5 is just the average cost of his monthly txt, he's not actually on a plan, we just pay per txt for his phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xao
Because our jobs actually require us to txt a lot to people that are not family nor on AT&T. I have to say though that since iMessage the # of actual SMS have dropped significantly, but not enough to switch to the lower 200 plan. Her dad at $5 is just the average cost of his monthly txt, he's not actually on a plan, we just pay per txt for his phone.
But the unlimited texting is not just between family members, it's to everyone. My son did not send his family members all those 18,000 text messages in one month. You can save yourself a lot with that plan.
I have to say, there really is a lot of stupidity on this discussion. I have just a few things to say.
These shared data plans on both AT&T and Verizon will be great for some and not for others. Yes, of course these two companies are trying to develop a pricing model that will allow them to grow their average revenue per user - they are profit making companies. They aren't charities or government agencies. A lot of the people on here seem to have the same attitude that much of the American public has when it comes to taxes and government services - they want all of the benefits and perks of services, but they don't want to pay for it. AT&T and Verizon have shareholders and they are expected to deliver profits for them - sometimes that coincides with what is best for the consumer and sometimes it doesn't. Particularly with U.S. cell phone market becoming saturated (who doesn't have at least a regular cell phone), these companies have to find new ways to grow their revenue - that's called capitalism. In a free market, you have a choice if you don't like it - take your money elsewhere.
If you don't like what AT&T and Verizon are offering, there are a number of other providers out there to choose from. The cell phone industry isn't a perfectly free market (few industries are) because you do have government regulation and they are, at the end of the day, telecommunications company. Historically, the telecom industry has not exactly been the most competitive, but I think you would be hard pressed to find a time in American history where it has been as competitive as it is today. You have so many options. You can choose traditional land lines from a telephone company, VOIP lines from cable providers, cell phones, online services like skype, etc. At the end of the day, many of us choose AT&T or Verizon because we want wireless service on our smartphone and we want good nationwide coverage. Do you pay a premium for their service over say, T-mobile or Sprint? Yes, but its up to you whether you want to pay it.
A lot of people also don't seem to realize the difference between cell phone providers that have their own network of cell phone towers and those that just roam on other networks. AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-mobile and, to a more limited degree, a couple of other small players actually maintain their own nationwide network of cell phone towers. Providers like StraightTalk simply buy the ability for their phones to roam on the towers of one of those providers. StraightTalk doesn't have to invest in infrastructure the way the other providers do. It does cost money to maintain a wireless network infrastructure. Cell phone towers don't go up for free - do a search of Google news articles and you will just how difficult it is for these providers to even put up a cell phone tower in a lot of areas. The NIMBY attitute is alive and well in America - again, we want the cell phone service, get angry when it isn't available, and then throw a tantrum the minute AT&T or Verizon want to put up a cell phone tower in our neighborhood. Furthermore, Verizon and AT&T have a more extensive nationwide network than any other carrier. You probably don't realize it, but if you go to a place like Montana or Wyoming, Sprint and T-mobile have zero cell phone towers - the only reason you can get service with those providers in those areas is because they are roaming on Verizon or AT&T's towers. It isn't cheap to maintain a nationwide network, particular in both dense, urban areas like NYC or sparsely populated rural areas like Montana.
So, if you don't like the new plans - fine, switch to someone else. But give me a break when talking about AT&T or Verizon as these greedy, corporate titans that are only interested in stealing your money. Yes, they want to make a profit, as any corporation in America does, but they are also providing a service that is expensive to provide - the telecom industry is a capital intensive industry and always has been. They can't just give it away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Seems a bit suspicious. How do you know it wasn't stolen?
She and her friend had each upgraded and each had a receipt. They wanted $500 originally, and I talked them down because they sounded desperate. They did look like they were gonna spend it on booze and tattoos though
Quote:
Originally Posted by airjay81
I have to say, there really is a lot of stupidity on this discussion. I have just a few things to say.
These shared data plans on both AT&T and Verizon will be great for some and not for others. Yes, of course these two companies are trying to develop a pricing model that will allow them to grow their average revenue per user - they are profit making companies. They aren't charities or government agencies. A lot of the people on here seem to have the same attitude that much of the American public has when it comes to taxes and government services - they want all of the benefits and perks of services, but they don't want to pay for it. AT&T and Verizon have shareholders and they are expected to deliver profits for them - sometimes that coincides with what is best for the consumer and sometimes it doesn't. Particularly with U.S. cell phone market becoming saturated (who doesn't have at least a regular cell phone), these companies have to find new ways to grow their revenue - that's called capitalism. In a free market, you have a choice if you don't like it - take your money elsewhere.
If you don't like what AT&T and Verizon are offering, there are a number of other providers out there to choose from. The cell phone industry isn't a perfectly free market (few industries are) because you do have government regulation and they are, at the end of the day, telecommunications company. Historically, the telecom industry has not exactly been the most competitive, but I think you would be hard pressed to find a time in American history where it has been as competitive as it is today. You have so many options. You can choose traditional land lines from a telephone company, VOIP lines from cable providers, cell phones, online services like skype, etc. At the end of the day, many of us choose AT&T or Verizon because we want wireless service on our smartphone and we want good nationwide coverage. Do you pay a premium for their service over say, T-mobile or Sprint? Yes, but its up to you whether you want to pay it.
A lot of people also don't seem to realize the difference between cell phone providers that have their own network of cell phone towers and those that just roam on other networks. AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-mobile and, to a more limited degree, a couple of other small players actually maintain their own nationwide network of cell phone towers. Providers like StraightTalk simply buy the ability for their phones to roam on the towers of one of those providers. StraightTalk doesn't have to invest in infrastructure the way the other providers do. It does cost money to maintain a wireless network infrastructure. Cell phone towers don't go up for free - do a search of Google news articles and you will just how difficult it is for these providers to even put up a cell phone tower in a lot of areas. The NIMBY attitute is alive and well in America - again, we want the cell phone service, get angry when it isn't available, and then throw a tantrum the minute AT&T or Verizon want to put up a cell phone tower in our neighborhood. Furthermore, Verizon and AT&T have a more extensive nationwide network than any other carrier. You probably don't realize it, but if you go to a place like Montana or Wyoming, Sprint and T-mobile have zero cell phone towers - the only reason you can get service with those providers in those areas is because they are roaming on Verizon or AT&T's towers. It isn't cheap to maintain a nationwide network, particular in both dense, urban areas like NYC or sparsely populated rural areas like Montana.
So, if you don't like the new plans - fine, switch to someone else. But give me a break when talking about AT&T or Verizon as these greedy, corporate titans that are only interested in stealing your money. Yes, they want to make a profit, as any corporation in America does, but they are also providing a service that is expensive to provide - the telecom industry is a capital intensive industry and always has been. They can't just give it away.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you for the intelligent reply!
Quote:
Originally Posted by airjay81
I have to say, there really is a lot of stupidity on this discussion. I have just a few things to say.
These shared data plans on both AT&T and Verizon will be great for some and not for others. Yes, of course these two companies are trying to develop a pricing model that will allow them to grow their average revenue per user - they are profit making companies. They aren't charities or government agencies. A lot of the people on here seem to have the same attitude that much of the American public has when it comes to taxes and government services - they want all of the benefits and perks of services, but they don't want to pay for it. AT&T and Verizon have shareholders and they are expected to deliver profits for them - sometimes that coincides with what is best for the consumer and sometimes it doesn't. Particularly with U.S. cell phone market becoming saturated (who doesn't have at least a regular cell phone), these companies have to find new ways to grow their revenue - that's called capitalism. In a free market, you have a choice if you don't like it - take your money elsewhere.
If you don't like what AT&T and Verizon are offering, there are a number of other providers out there to choose from. The cell phone industry isn't a perfectly free market (few industries are) because you do have government regulation and they are, at the end of the day, telecommunications company. Historically, the telecom industry has not exactly been the most competitive, but I think you would be hard pressed to find a time in American history where it has been as competitive as it is today. You have so many options. You can choose traditional land lines from a telephone company, VOIP lines from cable providers, cell phones, online services like skype, etc. At the end of the day, many of us choose AT&T or Verizon because we want wireless service on our smartphone and we want good nationwide coverage. Do you pay a premium for their service over say, T-mobile or Sprint? Yes, but its up to you whether you want to pay it.
A lot of people also don't seem to realize the difference between cell phone providers that have their own network of cell phone towers and those that just roam on other networks. AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-mobile and, to a more limited degree, a couple of other small players actually maintain their own nationwide network of cell phone towers. Providers like StraightTalk simply buy the ability for their phones to roam on the towers of one of those providers. StraightTalk doesn't have to invest in infrastructure the way the other providers do. It does cost money to maintain a wireless network infrastructure. Cell phone towers don't go up for free - do a search of Google news articles and you will just how difficult it is for these providers to even put up a cell phone tower in a lot of areas. The NIMBY attitute is alive and well in America - again, we want the cell phone service, get angry when it isn't available, and then throw a tantrum the minute AT&T or Verizon want to put up a cell phone tower in our neighborhood. Furthermore, Verizon and AT&T have a more extensive nationwide network than any other carrier. You probably don't realize it, but if you go to a place like Montana or Wyoming, Sprint and T-mobile have zero cell phone towers - the only reason you can get service with those providers in those areas is because they are roaming on Verizon or AT&T's towers. It isn't cheap to maintain a nationwide network, particular in both dense, urban areas like NYC or sparsely populated rural areas like Montana.
So, if you don't like the new plans - fine, switch to someone else. But give me a break when talking about AT&T or Verizon as these greedy, corporate titans that are only interested in stealing your money. Yes, they want to make a profit, as any corporation in America does, but they are also providing a service that is expensive to provide - the telecom industry is a capital intensive industry and always has been. They can't just give it away.
I don't many are calling for any sort of investigation into Verizon or AT&T or even declaring they aren't allowed to offer these plans. Many are saying simply that the prices and offerings are no longer worth tolerating for a phone subsidy or are saying they will tolerate a different phone, if tied to a service, for a more affordable service price.
Claiming MVNO's don't pay to maintain a network though is really nonsense. Neither AT&T nor Verizon nor anyone else is going to sell access to their networks for less than their own wholesale cost and part of determining that cost is factoring the price of maintaining a network. I own rental properties and the rents from them include maintenance and taxes. This would be no different.
So regardless of who you use whether they be the first party or an MVNO, you are paying to maintain the network.
The mark up on cellular service is ridiculous. That said most people buy much more than they need and are scared into paying more than they should. This happens because people subsidize new and shiny phones and because of fear of overages. Most regulated utilities do not allow the sort overages that cell companies engage in. They may charge higher rates above a certain usage level but they cannot suddenly have mark ups in the hundred to thousands of percent from prior pricing.
Where cell companies have to be careful is to profit but not be so excessive in their pursuit of profits that people call for them to be a strictly regulated public utility. No one buys excessive water or electricity because they don't sweat that their 501st gallon of water will suddenly cost more than the previous 500 combined. It is also very expensive to provide water, electricity, etc.
Again most people won't care because they are short sighted and want a shiny new phone. However as with many scenarios, technology changes and when the former technology evangelists become those heading for the exits, an inflection point can occur where the change is very sudden. I suspect this will soon be the case for cell companies but that it is also happening with "cord cutters" (of which I am one) with regard to cable and satellite.
It is clear cell companies think they can use data to dictate terms. I suspect they will soon find out otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
I don't many are calling for any sort of investigation into Verizon or AT&T or even declaring they aren't allowed to offer these plans. Many are saying simply that the prices and offerings are no longer worth tolerating for a phone subsidy or are saying they will tolerate a different phone, if tied to a service, for a more affordable service price.
Claiming MVNO's don't pay to maintain a network though is really nonsense. Neither AT&T nor Verizon nor anyone else is going to sell access to their networks for less than their own wholesale cost and part of determining that cost is factoring the price of maintaining a network. I own rental properties and the rents from them include maintenance and taxes. This would be no different.
So regardless of who you use whether they be the first party or an MVNO, you are paying to maintain the network.
The mark up on cellular service is ridiculous. That said most people buy much more than they need and are scared into paying more than they should. This happens because people subsidize new and shiny phones and because of fear of overages. Most regulated utilities do not allow the sort overages that cell companies engage in. They may charge higher rates above a certain usage level but they cannot suddenly have mark ups in the hundred to thousands of percent from prior pricing.
Where cell companies have to be careful is to profit but not be so excessive in their pursuit of profits that people call for them to be a strictly regulated public utility. No one buys excessive water or electricity because they don't sweat that their 501st gallon of water will suddenly cost more than the previous 500 combined. It is also very expensive to provide water, electricity, etc.
Again most people won't care because they are short sighted and want a shiny new phone. However as with many scenarios, technology changes and when the former technology evangelists become those heading for the exits, an inflection point can occur where the change is very sudden. I suspect this will soon be the case for cell companies but that it is also happening with "cord cutters" (of which I am one) with regard to cable and satellite.
It is clear cell companies think they can use data to dictate terms. I suspect they will soon find out otherwise.
What if they offered the same plans at $20 less per month without a subsidy? Would people think that was more fair?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
I don't many are calling for any sort of investigation into Verizon or AT&T or even declaring they aren't allowed to offer these plans. Many are saying simply that the prices and offerings are no longer worth tolerating for a phone subsidy or are saying they will tolerate a different phone, if tied to a service, for a more affordable service price.
Claiming MVNO's don't pay to maintain a network though is really nonsense. Neither AT&T nor Verizon nor anyone else is going to sell access to their networks for less than their own wholesale cost and part of determining that cost is factoring the price of maintaining a network. I own rental properties and the rents from them include maintenance and taxes. This would be no different.
So regardless of who you use whether they be the first party or an MVNO, you are paying to maintain the network.
The mark up on cellular service is ridiculous. That said most people buy much more than they need and are scared into paying more than they should. This happens because people subsidize new and shiny phones and because of fear of overages. Most regulated utilities do not allow the sort overages that cell companies engage in. They may charge higher rates above a certain usage level but they cannot suddenly have mark ups in the hundred to thousands of percent from prior pricing.
Where cell companies have to be careful is to profit but not be so excessive in their pursuit of profits that people call for them to be a strictly regulated public utility. No one buys excessive water or electricity because they don't sweat that their 501st gallon of water will suddenly cost more than the previous 500 combined. It is also very expensive to provide water, electricity, etc.
Again most people won't care because they are short sighted and want a shiny new phone. However as with many scenarios, technology changes and when the former technology evangelists become those heading for the exits, an inflection point can occur where the change is very sudden. I suspect this will soon be the case for cell companies but that it is also happening with "cord cutters" (of which I am one) with regard to cable and satellite.
It is clear cell companies think they can use data to dictate terms. I suspect they will soon find out otherwise.
I know people may not be calling for an investigation or saying they aren't able to offer these plans, but there does seem to be a lot of statements about how ridiculous people think these plans are and how AT&T and Verizon are charging us ridiculous amounts of money for the services they offer, and I simply don't agree. They are both charging market rates in a market that is pretty free, considering the limitations of competition in the telecom space. Is it more than Sprint, T-mobile, the MVNOs, etc? Yes, but I would argue that you get more from AT&T and Verizon - whether it is worth it is up to each individual consumer, and I suspect, at the end of the day, many of the people who grumble and complain about big bad red and big bad blue will stick with them.
I suppose I overstated that MVNOs don't have to pay anything to maintain a network but if you are going to argue that MVNOs have the same ratio of spending on infrastructure to revenue that AT&T and Verizon do, I think you're smoking something really good. Sure, AT&T and Verizon are going to charge MVNOs to use their network and some of that charge is going to be on account of network costs, but, the MVNOs do not have to deal with the actual infrastructure and ongoing maintenance. They simply get to pay to use it and if they decide to use someone elses they can stop at any time. Moreover, AT&T and Verizon will only be able to charge what the market can bear (and, in fact, are probably forced to charge less in certain instances on account of FCC regulations dictating that they can only charge to much). To use your rental property analogy, yes, the rate you charge for rent will try to take account of the cost of maintenance, but you are only going to be charge rent for what the market will bear - that may or may not adequately cover your maintenance costs. For the renter, they get to rent and leave when they are done - they don't have to worry about the long-term expenses associated with a property. AT&T and Verizon have the largest, most extensive networks in the U.S. that become more heavily utilized every year. That costs money and requires both ongoing expenses and long-term reserves. An MVNO only has to pay the rate of their current contract with AT&T or Verizon - they do not have to deal with the long-term commitment and expense of running and maintaining a cell phone network.
I'm not arguing that there isn't a significant mark-up on cellular services - yes, the amount AT&T and Verizon charge is likely far greater than what you cost them as a user. That's called making a profit. Undoubtedly, the price of cell phone service has decreased over the past 10-15 years. At the same time, what cell service provides has increased - better coverage, clearer calls, faster and faster data. The new pricing schemes may raise consumer prices in the short run, but what you pay per minute/per text/per gb of data consumed will continue to decrease over time. I simply don't see a tipping point coming very soon - all I see is increased demand for cellular data. A point of market saturation will eventually be reached and, I suppose, cell phone companies will become more like cable companies. However, unlike with cable where you can "cut the cord" and go with internet streaming for your TV needs (although, even there, you aren't going to get what you would if you paid for it - not yet, anyways), there is not yet anything you can do to ditch your cell phone. Maybe new technology will be developed that could substitute for cell service, but I don't see it yet.
They can be compared, you just need to account for the differences properly. Subsidy vs. no subsidy, just divide the cost of the device over two years (or whatever your expected use length would be) on an unsubsidized plan to compare to a subsidized plan.
A MVNO might not have their own infrastructure, but they are paying others for the right to use their networks. The "big" network operators also pay for the use of other networks, often smaller regional networks too.
Also, I found this gem:
"Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sprint Nextel." I think it's fair to say they have the infrastructure problem taken care of. Virgin doesn't offer roaming, which can be an issue. They offer iPhones now, so it's worth checking out.
It doesn't bother me what they charge - they have a right to charge whatever they want, just as I had the right to switch to Straight Talk.
What does bother me is that you're paying a higher rate because you get a subsidized phone. But once the contract is expired, your rate should drop since you've paid back the subsidy. The other thing that bothers me is how difficult they make it to unlock your phone at the end of the contract period. I spent 2 hours in the AT&T store and had to make a trip back home to get my bill (they apparently couldn't find it in their system) and then wait 3 days for the mother ship to send me an unlocking code.
They claim that data is unlimited.
The only unwritten limitation that I've seen is that if you start streaming movies and audio all the time, they might throttle it or even cut you of, but for normal data usage, you effectively have no limit.
When I see how much smartphone data costs these days, I am very glad I use a dumb phone without paying for data, plus owning an iPod Touch for most of the features I would use a smartphone for if I had one. The rising costs for mobile data is a sure cure for iPhone envy on my part.