|
JP Money posted:Surely that doesn't describe a large part of the demographic If you have good T-Mobile coverage in your area then T-Mobile's prepaid plans might be perfect for you. $30/month for 100 minutes/unlimited texts/unlimited data (throttled after 5GB). If for some reason you need some more minutes then get a VOIP app as suggested in the prepaid thread or T-Mobile's wi-fi calling thing (if this applies to prepaid). e: You would have to provide your own phone but soon you will be able to buy a Galaxy Nexus straight from Google for $350 or just get a used phone off ebay or whatever. Galler fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Jul 5, 2012 |
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 04:46
|
|
. People are upset that after years of verizon shoving unlimited data on 3G down everyone's throats and pushing everyone to get smartphones they finally yanked the carpet out from under us all when we got a taste of unlimited 4G. I personally could care less about minutes - I might use 30 a month tops. All I want is unlimited text and data. I'm fine with the current pricing and honestly during my next upgrade I'll even accept a 4GB cap if necessary but if the plans continue to go up and up towards more than 100 dollars a month for a single user I'll be setting sail away from Verizon and onto a (hopefully) more sane provider.
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
Colonel Sanders posted:OK, where did they jack up the price for a significant portion of users? Look, you can keep saying "everyone texts" as much as you want, but not everyone texts. Between Google Voice and Google Talk, I haven't used more than 10 texts in a single month so far this year, and that number could go down to almost 0 if my dad would remember to text my GV number. The fact that you "think most people are going to want text messages" is irrelevant to those of us who don't. Comparing the price of an old plan with unlimited texting to the price of a new plan with unlimited texting is a pointless comparison for people who've never had and don't want unlimited texting (or minutes for that matter), since that's not something we want to be paying for anyway. Under the old plans, that was our choice. Under the new plans, too bad. That's what people are complaining about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 04:47
|
|
gets you 2GB ($100 total) or extra 
for 4GB ($110). The old pricing if 2GB wasn't enough you add an extra $30 for 5GB - pay either $100 for no text messages or $120 for text, and the same $120/month would get you 6GB on the new plan.
|
Penguissimo posted:Look, you can keep saying "everyone texts" as much as you want, but not everyone texts. Between Google Voice and Google Talk, I haven't used more than 10 texts in a single month so far this year, and that number could go down to almost 0 if my dad would remember to text my GV number. You have a point that the new plans suck in the sense that I really don't care for unlimited voice. I still send a lot of text messages and use a bit of data. I would be a lot happier if the base rate for the new plans was $10 cheaper, but I don't feel that Verizon is just jacking up prices on "all" the users. I don't know what the statistics are for who spends hours on the phone, who sends a million texts, or who uses too much data. I do know a lot of people still send me a lot of text messages. So without knowing the statistics, I still believe text massaging is popular and probably wanted by a majority of verizon users.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 05:00
|
|
|
Colonel Sanders posted:I don't know what the statistics are for who spends hours on the phone, who sends a million texts, or who uses too much data. I do know a lot of people still send me a lot of text messages. So without knowing the statistics, I still believe text massaging is popular and probably wanted by a majority of verizon users. Even if this is true, a majority is still not everyone, and there's absolutely no technical or logistical reason to force everyone onto unlimited minutes and texts. Like bull said, the problem here is the loss of choice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 05:05
|
|
Colonel Sanders posted:I still believe text massaging is popular and probably wanted by a majority of verizon users. I, for one, would pay for this service.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 05:06
|
|
|
JP Money posted:I, for one, would pay for this service. Especially in combination with unlimited minutes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
Colonel Sanders posted:You have a point that the new plans suck in the sense that I really don't care for unlimited voice. I still send a lot of text messages and use a bit of data. I would be a lot happier if the base rate for the new plans was $10 cheaper, but I don't feel that Verizon is just jacking up prices on "all" the users. Why are you defending verizon on this? Their plan rates were already the highest, so jacking them even $10 is absurd. Voice calling is going down, data use is going way up. So yes, the plan is not quite terrible now, but most people don't need unlimited voice but are now forced to pay for it if they want verizon. bull3964 posted:There were other text messaging options than unlimited on Verizon. They had a $5 250 message plan and a $10 1000 message plan before they moved to these shared plans. The later, especially, is plenty for a lot of people. There's no such thing as choice in the US for wireless. AT&T will be matching these data share rated by the end of the summer. They already said they were planning it, and when has verizon and ATT NOT basically price fix the market (they are always within $5 of the other)? T-Mobile is getting killed right now and Sprint is kind of a wild card long term. So yeah, unfortunately I don't see prices going down, the exception maybe being the prepaid market, and for whatever reason Americans hate prepaid (what I mean is most Americans sign a contract). So yeah, wireless is only going to go up and get worse in the US. Duckman2008 fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Jul 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 05:09
|
|
|
Hey Duckman, we're people freaking out like this when Sprint changed to the Everything Plans?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 05:12
|
|
|
WithoutTheFezOn posted:Hey Duckman, we're people freaking out like this when Sprint changed to the Everything Plans? Yes (especially on SA). Here's the rub though, people pay it. Most everyone on Sprint has been converted to the extra $10 a month. People honestly question it, but they then also keep paying it. Hell, the upgrade fees went from $18 to $36, but most people don't even flinch when I go over it. I'm drat good at sales, but for most people they wouldn't care either way. So yeah, people get accustomed to paying for, and sprint got away with raising prices because Verizon and ATT raised their prices. And for people who bitch, few switch, and for everyone who switched new customers came over to replace them. Americans don't speak with their wallet carrier wise as much as you would think. Its way easier to just stick with what you have, change is hard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 05:17
|
|
|
WithoutTheFezOn posted:Hey Duckman, we're people freaking out like this when Sprint changed to the Everything Plans? Sprint didn't eliminate limited minute options though. You get can get a 450 min option one Sprint right now with unlimited data/text for $79.99. That's a hell of a lot more reasonable. It's $5 more than I pay now, but I wouldn't have really begrudged Verizon much for having a 450 min /2gb data/unlimited text plan for $80-$85. $100 is just too much though when you don't need the minutes. I'm basically rooting for Network Vision at this point now because I know it's only a matter of time before Verizon forces people off legacy plans. When that happens, I'll be moving away from Verizon wireless service after being a customer for 11 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 05:21
|
|
|
Prepaid won't become popular as all the newest (and subsequently most subsidized) phones are going to be stuck on the high-cost plans. This strikes me as similar to a time when AT&T charged $20++ dollars a month for a few texts. Does it really cost them that much for 250 text messages a month? Probably not - but they'll drat well charge you for it.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 05:23
|
|
|
Duckman2008 posted:Why are you defending verizon on this? Because I am not an anti-corporate hipster. Duckman2008 posted:Their plan rates were already the highest, so jacking them even $10 is absurd. If that is true, then this. . . Duckman2008 posted:There's no such thing as choice in the US for wireless. AT&T will be matching these data share rated by the end of the summer. They already said they were planning it, and when has verizon and ATT NOT basically price fix the market (they are always within $5 of the other)? Must be false? Duckman2008 posted:<snip> and for whatever reason Americans hate prepaid (what I mean is most Americans sign a contract). The full retail price of my phone is $599.99, I am ok with that being subsidized.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 05:25
|
|
|
Colonel Sanders posted:
Which is a false price that's being jacked up BECAUSE it's subsidized. Verizon Galaxy Nexus is $649 full retail while Google sells it directly, unlocked, for $349. The CMDA/LTE radios and an extra 16gb of storage didn't inflate the price by $300.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 05:28
|
|
|
Duckman2008 posted:So yeah, people get accustomed to paying for, and sprint got away with raising prices because Verizon and ATT raised their prices. And for people who bitch, few switch, and for everyone who switched new customers came over to replace them. The answer for constant price raises in a market with little competition and high costs of entry isn't to ask consumers to "vote with their wallets" (there's a lot of reasons you can't, and laziness isn't one of them), it's to implement regulation. There's already been one DOJ investigation launched against AT&T and Verizon for price fixing. Colonel Sanders posted:Because I am not an anti-corporate hipster. You're drawing bad conclusions and your comment about not being an "anti-corporate hipster" is way out of line. If that's how you're seeing the people who disagree with you, then just get lost. Vertigus fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Jul 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 05:33
|
|
|
WithoutTheFezOn posted:Hey Duckman, we're people freaking out like this when Sprint changed to the Everything Plans? Furthermore, anyone who ever bothered to read the Sprint thread OP could get a plan that was more or less a 15% service discount, so the above Sprint plan really only cost $70/mo, equivalent to Verizon and AT&T's cheapest unlimited data individual plan option. Where Everything Data hurt was in mixed-device family plans. If you wanted a plan with one smartphone and two dumbphones, and didn't want/need data on the dumbphones, it made more sense to go with Verizon or AT&T where data could be purchased for an individual line instead of applying across the whole plan. For that market, Sprint priced themselves out of competition, I don't know how many folks here that affected though. The biggest Sprint freakout in recent history is the $10/mo "Premium Data" fee. Originally it applied to lines with 4G (WiMAX) smartphones, ostensibly to fund the WiMAX rollout that (i) was never completed, and (ii) never really worked where it was rolled out. Then it became a "smartphone fee", if not essentially a less-than-transparent and somewhat confusing way to just raise prices by $10/mo. Combine this with the fact that Sprint's 3G data network has really tanked in most markets over the past few years, I'm sure a lot of the folks who complained did up and leave. So yeah, I'll chalk this up to Verizon taking one from the Sprint playbook and using the new plans as a confusing, non-transparent way to start extracting $10/mo more from folks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 05:39
|
|
|
What are the chances verizon gets a 4G Nexus tablet?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 07:48
|
|
|
In a disgusting way, these Verizon price changes are a little bit vindicating for me. The day Google Voice launched, I was annoyingly crowing at people to start using it in spite of its quirks and to get themselves onto wireless plans that didn't have a text messaging plan included because... come on, you guys, the writing was on the loving wall. If a carrier can't outright block customers from using apps that circument their revenue stream (like GV, et al), they're just going to reform their plans. Sprint should be "praised" for their market-leading "innovation" in this space. How quickly did those yellow-and-black motherfuckers see the GV freight train coming? Not only were they quick to repond by force-bundling SMS into their plans -- thereby convincing a legion of can't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees Sprint aficionados here and elsewhere that they were being offered a "great value" -- they had the god drat audacity to partner with Google and act like they were thrilled about GV. Sprint's made a lot of dumb moves over the years, but they saw this messaging marginalization thing right away, and they put the screws to the folks gullible enough to stay with them. Verizon is just now getting around to following suit, and they're burying it under the rage tornado associated with their preposterously small and expensive data buckets. Really shrewd move. The text messaging poo poo even extends to the prepaid guys, too. The cheapest way to get onto AT&T's network off-contract seems to be Straight Talk's $45/month plan, which of course, pointlessly includes a text messaging bundle. $45/month's lower than Verizon's $fuckyou/month, but it sure seems curious that Straight Talk doesn't offer a $35-40/month plan without SMS. I've said it before and I'll say it again, but I can't understand for the life of me why anyone's a Verizon customer right now unless (A) you have a grandfathered unlimited plan and an LTE device (great reason) or (B) you live in some bumfuck part of the country that nobody else covers (you should probably move). ExcessBLarg! posted:Furthermore, anyone who ever bothered to read the Sprint thread OP could get a plan that was more or less a 15% service discount, so the above Sprint plan really only cost $70/mo, equivalent to Verizon and AT&T's cheapest unlimited data individual plan option. The thing is, these phones aren't actually worth anything near what's being asked for them -- as should be abundantly clear through Google's Play Store asking price for the GNex. There's no planet where a Verizon smartphone is worth $650 on the open market. There just isn't. They're imaginary numbers that are made up to make these terrible subsidy-included plans look attractive. I'll stick with Verizon for as long as they'll let me pay my $48/month for an unlimited LTE Galaxy Nexus. But as soon as they force me off, it's prepaid time -- and it should be for you guys, too. kbar fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Jul 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 08:42
|
|
|
I really just want to point out that as much as everyone in this thread, the Sprint thread and the AT&T thread  about not using text messages and using only voice and data in calculations, because G+/Google Voice/whatever is a 'viable' replacement. Please try and keep in mind that for the other 108.69999 million customers, it isn't.I can count the number of times, in my two and a half years of wireless, on two hands, that I've activated lines without text messaging. So please just try to keep this in mind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 09:00
|
|
|
kalibar posted:I'll stick with Verizon for as long as they'll let me pay my $48/month for an unlimited LTE Galaxy Nexus. But as soon as they force me off, it's prepaid time -- and it should be for you guys, too. How on earth are you paying $48/mo? I thought I was dong exceptionally well with my $68/mo. I'm thoroughly jealous >=o SeaborneClink posted:I really just want to point out that as much as everyone in this thread, the Sprint thread and the AT&T thread This is proof that the average consumer (108.69999 million) are in excess, stupid as gently caress. Why on earth anyone would blast their name on a piece of paper before properly researching the product they are purchasing, completely escapes my imagination. Especially when there are designed ways to keep money in your pocket. Even more so when subsidies, interest, long term commitments, etc are taken into account. People are sheep, and I feel absolutely no remorse for these people who consistently stab themselves in the wallet. Man the gently caress up and pick some oranges. Obviously these company's are not your friend in this regard. Take the initiative and force the money back in your pockets. cuedotcom fucked around with this message at 09:11 on Jul 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 09:00
|
|
|
Split portion of a family plan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 09:09
|
|
|
WithoutTheFezOn posted:Split portion of a family plan. My meek individual plan suffers that flaw. There is no splitting =[
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 09:13
|
|
|
kalibar posted:I've said it before and I'll say it again, but I can't understand for the life of me why anyone's a Verizon customer right now unless (A) you have a grandfathered unlimited plan and an LTE device (great reason) or (B) you live in some bumfuck part of the country that nobody else covers (you should probably move). I am both A and B  I'd love to ditch Verizon but they are very literally the only game in town. I feel that clinging to my unlimited data and using as much as I possibly can each month is my little way of saying "gently caress you!" while still being able to make calls from my house.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 09:23
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:I really just want to point out that as much as everyone in this thread, the Sprint thread and the AT&T thread Google+, Google Talk, and Facebook messenger, sure, yeah, those things are different. Don't lump GV in with that stuff -- it exists basically to bridge that legacy gap. WithoutTheFezOn posted:Split portion of a family plan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 09:39
|
|
|
kalibar posted:I don't think you know how Google Voice works. It lets you send text messages to other people using the data network. The only reason not to use it is not knowing that it exists. Paying for an Android smartphone and a Verizon account means you have (well, had) all the ingredients for not paying for a text package. This. And the crunch that everyone seems to be in these days; the lack of consumer knowledge is completely unacceptable. The only reason I retained my 1000/mo text package, is because it was the lowest I could go (along w. 300 anytime minutes) and still retain my cooperate discount.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 10:46
|
|
|
kalibar posted:I don't think you know how Google Voice works. It lets you send text messages to other people using the data network. The only reason not to use it is not knowing that it exists. Paying for an Android smartphone and a Verizon account means you have (well, had) all the ingredients for not paying for a text package. I know exactly how it works. All I'm trying to get across to people like you, is that learning how to send text messages using Google Voice, or making phone calls with one number and texts with another, or outgoing call forwarding with GV is literally too complicated for anyone not posting in this forum. They struggle with even basic concepts such as 'what is the difference between a widget and a shortcut' and 'how can I add another clock to my screen' and 'what does XYZ process has closed mean, please replace my defective phone' or my personal favorite 'how do I answer a phone call using the same behavior I use to unlock my phone. I keep pressing the green button but nothing happens.' The only way GV is a viable alternative to not paying for text messaging is if it were actually integrated seamlessly in the Android OS, a la iMessage. cuedotnet posted:This is proof that the average consumer (108.69999 million) are in excess, stupid as gently caress. Why on earth anyone would blast their name on a piece of paper before properly researching the product they are purchasing, completely escapes my imagination. Especially when there are designed ways to keep money in your pocket. Even more so when subsidies, interest, long term commitments, etc are taken into account. People are sheep, and I feel absolutely no remorse for these people who consistently stab themselves in the wallet. Man the gently caress up and pick some oranges. Obviously these company's are not your friend in this regard. Take the initiative and force the money back in your pockets. I don't really even want to think about this anymore it just makes me too  Most of the people I see only have smart phones because everyone else they know has them. They have zero interest in learning how to use the phone as a smart phone and are perfectly happy continuing to use their new iPhone the exact same way they used their enV3.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 10:48
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:The only way GV is a viable alternative to not paying for text messaging is if it were actually integrated seamlessly in the Android OS, a la iMessage. My 60-year-old parents had no problem with GV.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 10:52
|
|
|
kalibar posted:"Use Google Voice for all calls," delete messaging shortcut from homescreen, pin GV shortcut to homescreen "grandma you want to use the blue bubble for texting," dance all night Did they want to use Google Voice or did you tell them to?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 11:22
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:Did they want to use Google Voice or did you tell them to? Generally when I tell my parents "hey, do this thing, it'll save you X dollars a month", they leap at the opportunity, especially when it turns out to be easy once they sit down and turn their brains on. Then again, my dad is pretty tech savvy (he's the person that basically taught me most of my fundamentals) and my mom catches on quick despite her learning disorders (a nasty case of dyslexia, primarily), so YMMV.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 11:36
|
|
|
The fact that GV app contains combined voicemail and SMS made it too complicated for my family or friends to use. I'm sure that's also the case with 99% of wireless customers. Most of my friends on verizon, for example, don't even know what "unlimited data" means. Losing it means nothing to them. When I checked a friends data use he was using less than 300mb a month. Its true, people are happy using the smart phones like a Motorola razr. The Shep fucked around with this message at 11:45 on Jul 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 11:42
|
|
|
kalibar posted:My 60-year-old parents had no problem with GV. I tried this with my mom, even porting the number she has had for 10+ years to GV, but when they go hiking on the Appalachian Trail she gets no data service, only 2g or whatever it was called, and has to use the "green" bubble to text my dad and a weird number shows up on his phone. And for that reason, I now have to port her number back to Verizon... That and the GV app is poorly coded and when she sends a text message she has to go to another screen to see it was sent. Also GV likes to breakup your text conversations for no loving reason. Basically it doesn't act like the texting she's used to, she feels like she has to juggle 2 apps, and doesn't want it anymore.....
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 11:52
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:I know exactly how it works. All I'm trying to get across to people like you, is that learning how to send text messages using Google Voice, or making phone calls with one number and texts with another, or outgoing call forwarding with GV is literally too complicated for anyone not posting in this forum. They struggle with even basic concepts such as 'what is the difference between a widget and a shortcut' and 'how can I add another clock to my screen' and 'what does XYZ process has closed mean, please replace my defective phone' or my personal favorite 'how do I answer a phone call using the same behavior I use to unlock my phone. I keep pressing the green button but nothing happens.' Let's be clear, there are a good number of stupid people put there, but I have plenty of customers aware of google voice, and people in general aren't that stupid. People ARE that lazy, and I think that is more what you are referencing. It goes back to my original point, people will just sign whatever, stick with whatever, that's how these plans get implemented. It's a good sign that there is public backlash for the new plans, but I have a hard time seeing them get changed, Vertigus posted:The answer for constant price raises in a market with little competition and high costs of entry isn't to ask consumers to "vote with their wallets" (there's a lot of reasons you can't, and laziness isn't one of them), it's to implement regulation. There's already been one DOJ investigation launched against AT&T and Verizon for price fixing. I could agree with this, and I'm all for more regulation. All for it. Overall as usual you are on the ball. In terms of a plan like straight talks $45 a month one, I would argue the plan would be $45 a month whether they included text messaging or not. I see the argument both that texting is extremely cheap for carriers, so why do they charge, and I've seen the argument that texting is a feature that carriers let you opt in and out on. I'm not super familiar with straight talk, but $45 for a smartphone plan is pretty reasonable in the US for better or worse, some don't know if you can knock the carrier for not offering a cheaper "sans text messaging" plan in that case. Duckman2008 fucked around with this message at 12:55 on Jul 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 12:48
|
|
|
cuedotnet posted:What are the chances verizon gets a 4G Nexus tablet? Pretty unlikely since there's been no talk at all of anything but a WiFi-only Nexus tablet, and Verizon doesn't exactly seem to have handled the whole Nexus thing like a champ anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 13:54
|
|
|
People seem to be fixated on the false dichotomy of NO TEXT PLAN vs UNLIMITED TEXT PLAN. Verizon offered some options in the past that were suitable for a lot of people. They had a $5 250 text plan (which I currently have) and a $10 1000 text plan. Before that, the $10 plan was unlimited Verizon to Verizon texting and 500 out of network texting. No, they didn't advertise them and I'm sure no sales person mentioned them to people, opting instead to push them towards unlimited messaging, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Hell, the only reason why I got the $5 text plan in the first place is that they kept jacking the price of individual messages to the point where they were $.20 a pop. That alone should be investigated because there's no way in hell that the actual cost of a message to the network went up 4 fold in a handful of years. It went up for the express purpose of forcing people on to text plans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 13:57
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:That alone should be investigated because there's no way in hell that the actual cost of a message to the network went up 4 fold in a handful of years. Aren't SMS messages just carriers on other data packets and literally cost nothing to send/receive, or am I misremembering?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 14:12
|
|
|
Kyrosiris posted:Generally when I tell my parents "hey, do this thing, it'll save you X dollars a month", they leap at the opportunity, especially when it turns out to be easy once they sit down and turn their brains on. It takes people a while to catch up from "hey, there's a tech dude who's sharing ways to save money" into "maybe we should listen to him". My parents are transitional, my wife just doesn't care. Hence, I pay for text messaging because she fears the possibility that she might get a picture message, of which she never sends to anyone. $30/mo wasted. YMMV for sure  bull3964 posted:Which is a false price that's being jacked up BECAUSE it's subsidized. Sometimes bull needs to shut up, but this one is right on the money. Even $349 is somewhat inflated by google, so $650 for the same phone is just verizon saying "gently caress you". Do people not realize that back in the day unlocked phones were $300 (on phones worth maybe $50-100), and that was the cap? Who do you think has been pushing to double it? Hint: US carriers. If a phone ever cost $300 to actually manufacture you'd see it for sale for $950 or more. In the meantime, the reality is most of these phones don't even break $120 to manufacture and that's first day of manufacturing - not even when things get more efficient from volume.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 14:31
|
|
|
notwithoutmyanus posted:Do people not realize that back in the day unlocked phones were $300 (on phones worth maybe $50-100), and that was the cap? Who do you think has been pushing to double it? Hint: US carriers. If a phone ever cost $300 to actually manufacture you'd see it for sale for $950 or more. In the meantime, the reality is most of these phones don't even break $120 to manufacture and that's first day of manufacturing - not even when things get more efficient from volume. Back in the day unlocked phones were stupid expensive, atleast in the states. The Nokia phones were $700-$1000 for things like the n95. The startac was $1000. The treo 700 was $649 from sprint (i know thats not an unlocked phone). The HTC 8525 was $699. Don Lapre fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Jul 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 14:40
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:That alone should be investigated because there's no way in hell that the actual cost of a message to the network went up 4 fold in a handful of years.  bull3964 posted:It went up for the express purpose of forcing people on to text plans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 15:07
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:Back in the day unlocked phones were stupid expensive, atleast in the states. The Nokia phones were $700-$1000 for things like the n95. The startac was $1000. The treo 700 was $649 from sprint (i know thats not an unlocked phone). The HTC 8525 was $699. I do remember buying a Nokia E70-2 for $379.99 through Buy.com and selling my free-on-contract HTC Wizard on eBay for 300 bucks to make up a bunch of the cost. Simpler times!
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 15:14
|
|
|
Kyrosiris posted:Aren't SMS messages just carriers on other data packets and literally cost nothing to send/receive, or am I misremembering? In any event, what you describe is how Google Voice works. In 2G/3G networks, regular SMSes are transferred over the bandwidth-constrained control/paging channels. To be honest, the issue isn't the marginal cost of sending a single SMS, the problem is that, in theory, as the service becomes hugely popular it can overload cells that otherwise have plenty of voice and data bandwidth available. So, by attributing some small cost to each SMS, you disincentive folks from sending them willy-nilly. Of course, shortly after the carriers started doing this, they realized that SMS was a cash cow, and used it as a mechanism to extract $10-20/mo additional from customers. The modern price of an SMS at 20¢ to send and receive is nothing more than a calculated value selected to encourage the greatest number of folks to select a plan option. For example, if you send or receive 100 messages a month, that's $20 at 20¢ per message, so 1000 messages for $10/mo is a "great deal". Now, there well may be transit costs that each carrier charges when receiving SMSes from other carriers or something, and that's a cost that actually can be attributed per message. However, with Verizon being the largest carrier by subscriber volume, I'm sure they're making money here, not losing, or at worst just have a peering agreement with AT&T or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 15:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
notwithoutmyanus posted:Who do you think has been pushing to double it? Hint: US carriers. I'm sure the "wholesale" (as in, what carriers pay to Apple) price for iPhones probably is double the industry standard, and carriers subsidizing a 16 GB iPhone 4S for $200 are really losing there. Folks who buy retail-price carrier-branded Android devices are just making up the difference.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 15:32
|
|