[crossuab]

I understand they make money on the plans and that the contracts ensure you stay with them long enough to recoup the cost of the subsidized phone. AT&T increased the cost of the iPhone plans when the new iPhone 3G came out so they could recoup the cost of the now subsidized iPhone. Why couldn't they lower the cost of your monthly plan after the contract has ended and the phone is paid for considering that's the reason they increased the cost of the plan in the first place? They would still be making money from the lower priced plan. Decreasing the cost of the plan doesn't make it subsidized, it only reverts it back to what it was before they started subsidizing the iPhone. Again this would be after your contract has ended and thus the phone has been paid for.

[smax013]

crossuab said:

I understand they make money on the plans and that the contracts ensure you stay with them long enough to recoup the cost of the subsidized phone. AT&T increased the cost of the iPhone plans when the new iPhone 3G came out so they could recoup the cost of the now subsidized iPhone. Why couldn't they lower the cost of your monthly plan after the contract has ended and the phone is paid for considering that's the reason they increased the cost of the plan in the first place? They would still be making money from the lower priced plan. Decreasing the cost of the plan doesn't make it subsidized, it only reverts it back to what it was before they started subsidizing the iPhone. Again this would be after your contract has ended and thus the phone has been paid for.

Assuming we are seeing the full picture and your analysis is correct (i.e. that they could lower it and still make the profit they were making with previous cheaper plans), and I believe that to be a valid assumption, then they likely could. But, why would they when their goal is to make profits...the more, the merrier for them? Until there is a SERIOUS backlash that they see as really harming their ability to retain customer, they won't change. And considering how many people just go get another iPhone and stick with them with their iPhone, that is not likely to change. Face it...companies do not change until enough people complain...and many times such companies can be a little dense in these areas (look at how long it took Sprint to get serious about the number of people complaining and leaving due to poor customer service...they finally "got the message" and now tend to get much better marks for customer service from what I understand).

[glnhp]

I cannot say what the quoted cost includes. However, the off-plan texting still has a 1000% markup over the smallest package deal (at least in the case of Verizon). Also, keep in mind that messaging services were built primarliy on top of the infrastructure already being used for voice (the real bandwidth hog). Messaging should be built into every voice plan. Perhaps for every minute of voice, you receive one text message. I'm certainly not saying that everyone should have unlimited texting, but something reasonable should be offered as part of every plan. Since voice calls are significantly more expensive than texts, the drop in voice calls in lieu of texts may actually be a net gain for the carriers (and would free up bandwidth)..


The problem is there is no incentive for any of the carriers to change their ways. This is why some government regulation is necessary. I'm on Verizon because they have, hands down, the best coverage and I have intention of changing carriers. Others stick with AT&T because they MUST have the iPhone. And, of course, the largest consumers of texting (teenagers) probably never even see the phone bill.



The government broke up the AT&T monopoly under the Sherman anti-trust act for far less egregious acts. What we have here is just another case of anti-trust - obvious colusion between the major carriers. None of them want to get into a pricing war, so they all just toe the line.

[Logan]

No, you aren't the only one using PPU for texting. I too can't stand paying a monthly fee for something I hardly use, but it is also painful thinking about each text costing me 20¢!

[ivorycruncher]

I miss Midwest Wireless. It was the best cellular provider in southern Minnesota until they got bought out by Alltel Wireless, which of course is now being bought out by Verizon less than two years later.
I'm still on my old Midwest Wireless plan, which gave me 8-state no-roaming area (entire upper midwest region), 200 anytime minutes, unlimited evenings and weekends (evenings start at 7PM), and premium voicemail. The entire package, after taxes and fees, comes to just over $41 a month. NOBODY has deals like that anymore. Oh, and text messages (when it was still Midwest Wireless) only cost a nickel a piece. I think receiving may even have been free, and it only cost to send, but don't quote me on that. Ah, those were the days.
Once Alltel took over, it was instantly up to $0.15 a piece, both send and receive, and the good customer service disappeared as well. With Midwest Wireless, when I called the 1-800 support number, I got no canned recordings of any sort. A real person instantly answered the phone, and they were intelligent and helpful every time I called in. Alltel is a joke, so I hope the Verizon takeover happens quickly. Granted, I'll probably pay even more, but if I get good customer service again, I can deal with that.

[free2speak]

I just ordered a Tracfone yesterday. I don't need a fancy package. I just want something to carry in the car for emergencies. Tracfone is cheap, no contract, roll-over, double minutes for the life of the phone, and they use the AT&T network. If it doesn't work out I can try another. But make no mistake all of the wireless providers are trying to get people to sign up for expensive services they don't need.

[ivorycruncher]

You might want to dig into the fine print on that TracFone. I've heard reports that the "free double minutes for life" is an outright lie. Supposedly you only get double minutes free for the first year. I don't have a source to quote at the moment, but I know for a fact there was a report about it from someone. For your sake, I hope that isn't the case though.

I agree that pre-paid plans are all some people need, and the popularity of such plans is increasing. I personally think I use my phone too much for that to be economical, and I don't want to have to worry about running out of minutes at a very bad time. Even though I only hav 200 anytime minutes, most of my calling to family and friends and stuff takes place after 7PM, which puts me in the unlimited minutes range of my plan, so I never really come close to running out of minutes. I think the 9PM evenings idea is stupid.

Oh, another thing I absolutely love about the free in-network calling feature is that in-network calls still use your plans anytime minutes first. So, say you have a 450-minute plan, and you use 450 minutes during peak hours on in-network calls. That just burned up all your minutes. If you continue making in-network calls, they will of course be free, but you can't talk to anybody else without running into huge overage charges. This is yet another classic example of how the cellular companies deceive their customers and find excuses to charge more at every angle possible.

[smax013]

ivorycruncher said:

I'm still on my old Midwest Wireless plan, which gave me 8-state no-roaming area (entire upper midwest region), 200 anytime minutes, unlimited evenings and weekends (evenings start at 7PM), and premium voicemail. The entire package, after taxes and fees, comes to just over $41 a month. NOBODY has deals like that anymore.

Eh...not quite. You can get a Sprint plan with 200 minutes, unlimited night and weekends starting at 9 pm, free long distance, no roaming...for $30 plus the taxes, etc. You would like end up at about $35 or so. If you want unlimited night and weekends starting at 7 pm, then tack on another $5, which would likely put you at about the same price are you plan after taxes and fees. It includes voicemail (not sure what would included in what you refer to as "premium" voicemail) and NATIONWIDE no-roaming. And if you want to go a little more, then for $40 a month, you get 450 anytime minutes, unlimited nights and weekends starting at 7 pm, unlimited mobile to mobile (both phones on Sprint's network I would assume), free nationwise long distance and no roaming...would end up being about $5 to $6 more than what you pay after taxes and fees for 250 more anytime minutes that what you have, national no-roaming coverage, and unlimited mobile to mobile (you might have the last...you did not say one way or the other).

Now, they would nick you on the text messages.

[smax013]

glnhp said:

I cannot say what the quoted cost includes. However, the off-plan texting still has a 1000% markup over the smallest package deal (at least in the case of Verizon). Also, keep in mind that messaging services were built primarliy on top of the infrastructure already being used for voice (the real bandwidth hog). Messaging should be built into every voice plan. Perhaps for every minute of voice, you receive one text message. I'm certainly not saying that everyone should have unlimited texting, but something reasonable should be offered as part of every plan. Since voice calls are significantly more expensive than texts, the drop in voice calls in lieu of texts may actually be a net gain for the carriers (and would free up bandwidth)..

Maybe. Broadband wireless (i.e. data) does NOT use exact same system as voice yet. I believe there are still differences in the network hardware that each uses. That is certainly changing as VOIP type stuff becomes more prevalent...but I do not believe they are quite there yet. And true data networks (that are designed to handle bigger bandwidth of downloads) are still more "expensive" than traditional voice networks. The point is that the companies had to put in and upgrade their data networks in recent years as well as expand them into areas they are not currently in...and that all cost big $$$. Yes, texting may not need those larger bandwidths, but texting still will use those systems where they have capital investments.

Quote

The problem is there is no incentive for any of the carriers to change their ways. This is why some government regulation is necessary.

Why? Because we do not like the price they charge? If that was the case, then I guess the government needs to regulate the crap out of the music industry because there are a LOT of people who feel they charge too much based upon the number of people who feel they should be entitled to free music from peer-to-peer systems.

I highly doubt you will see much from Congress on this. It will most likely be members of Congress grandstanding a bit so as to give the "squeeky wheels" that complained some "warm fuzzies" and to shut them up for a bit. The only way there will be any solid action most likely is if there is some proof of collusion...but I doubt there is.

Quote

The government broke up the AT&T monopoly under the Sherman anti-trust act for far less egregious acts. What we have here is just another case of anti-trust - obvious colusion between the major carriers. None of them want to get into a pricing war, so they all just toe the line.

The key word there is "monopoly". There is no monoply in this situation. Thus, you are down to whether or not there is collusion. What you call obvious is not so obvious. Collusion is NOT just "none of them want to get into a pricing war, so they all just toe the line"...for them to be colluding you would have to show that they intentionally talked amongst themselves and agreed with each other to keep to a certain price. It they all decided to no price agressively without talking to the others and agreeing to not change the price, then it is not collusion. In general, I believe anti-trust cases based upon collusion of several companies tend to be much tougher to prove than anti-trust cases based upon monopolies...that is likely why you see more legal actions again monopoly based anti-trust cases.

[smax013]

ivorycruncher said:

Oh, another thing I absolutely love about the free in-network calling feature is that in-network calls still use your plans anytime minutes first. So, say you have a 450-minute plan, and you use 450 minutes during peak hours on in-network calls. That just burned up all your minutes. If you continue making in-network calls, they will of course be free, but you can't talk to anybody else without running into huge overage charges. This is yet another classic example of how the cellular companies deceive their customers and find excuses to charge more at every angle possible.

To my knowledge, Sprint has never done that...free mobile to mobile calls do not count against your anytime minutes on Sprint as far as I know.

I do not have mobile to mobile at the moment so I cannot test it...it does not matter to me as I have a grandfathered plan that I got for being a "valued" customer...I get 750 anytime minutes and unlimited night and weekends starting at 8 pm for $40 month (comes to about $46 after fees and taxes). I do not come anywhere close to 750 minutes the vast majority of the time, so I do not miss the free mobile to mobile. I suspect that I might be able to wring some deals out of them in order for signing a new contract when mine ends in the next month or so.

[ivorycruncher]

smax013 said:

Eh...not quite. You can get a Sprint plan with 200 minutes, unlimited night and weekends starting at 9 pm, free long distance, no roaming...for $30 plus the taxes, etc. You would like end up at about $35 or so. If you want unlimited night and weekends starting at 7 pm, then tack on another $5, which would likely put you at about the same price are you plan after taxes and fees. It includes voicemail (not sure what would included in what you refer to as "premium" voicemail) and NATIONWIDE no-roaming. And if you want to go a little more, then for $40 a month, you get 450 anytime minutes, unlimited nights and weekends starting at 7 pm, unlimited mobile to mobile (both phones on Sprint's network I would assume), free nationwise long distance and no roaming...would end up being about $5 to $6 more than what you pay after taxes and fees for 250 more anytime minutes that what you have, national no-roaming coverage, and unlimited mobile to mobile (you might have the last...you did not say one way or the other).

Now, they would nick you on the text messages.

Okay, I stand corrected. It's been a while since I've checked Sprint's plans. However, the reason I haven't bothered to check is because Sprint service is horrible in the area I live in. The company I last worked with ended their contract with Sprint because it was so bad, and the company I work for now is strongly considering the same thing, because Sprint is being really nasty about what they're billing us for. Not long ago they refused to ship out a new phone because they claimed we owed them money, when the opposite was actually true because they had messed up and billed us too much, causing us to overpay. They also have very poor network service coverage in rural areas, which is a no-go for me. Check Sprint's and AT&T's rural Minnesota coverage maps sometime, and even T-Mobile for that matter. It's not pretty. Getting the same deal but a worse network isn't an improvement. Sprint may work great somewhere for somebody else, but not for me.

Alltel may have lousy customer service, but I have no complain about the network service itself. The only problem I have now is that after a recent job move, I now live outside Alltel's home area, which means I'm on my 8-state no roaming area 100%. As long as they don't cut off my service due to that, I'm okay, but I would still like to move to Verizon because I'd like to get a new smartphone and data plan, and they're the best in my area for that. Of course, doing so will effectively double my current monthly bill, but that's another story. I love my iPod Touch, but I hate carrying two gizmos, so I'm hoping Apple will get smart and announce an iPhone for Verizon soon.

Oh, and fwiw, the Verizon takeover is partially completed, so I supposedly have free in-network calling to all Verizon customers now. Before that, my plan did not include free mobile-to-mobile calls. Only the more expensive plans had that feature. But with my evenings still at 7PM, that feature doesn't really benefit me right now. One thing's for sure though. I will never be bullied into paying for service I don't want or need. I use text-messaging about as much as the writer of this article, and it's not expensive enough for me to be worried about it. If it becomes noticeably more expensive, or if I start getting texting spam, I'll just have my carrier disable text-messaging entirely on my account, because I don't need it.

[ivorycruncher]

smax013 said:

To my knowledge, Sprint has never done that...free mobile to mobile calls do not count against your anytime minutes on Sprint as far as I know.

I do not have mobile to mobile at the moment so I cannot test it...it does not matter to me as I have a grandfathered plan that I got for being a "valued" customer...I get 750 anytime minutes and unlimited night and weekends starting at 8 pm for $40 month (comes to about $46 after fees and taxes). I do not come anywhere close to 750 minutes the vast majority of the time, so I do not miss the free mobile to mobile. I suspect that I might be able to wring some deals out of them in order for signing a new contract when mine ends in the next month or so.

They don't? That's awesome then. I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere in the fine print for Verizon's plans, so I was afraid all the carriers were pulling that fast one. I still believe Verizon is my best choice going forward, but this is definitely a major negative point for them.

[smax013]

In general, rural coverage is the weakness of all the national carriers. Regional Tier II and Tier III carriers tend to do that better.

While I agree that coverage is important, the point was that there were plans that match what you had/have. They might not work for you do to coverage issues, but they are out there.

FWIW, AT&T has a similar priced $40 plan to the one I outlined from Sprint (not my grandfathered one, but the currently available one). It is 450 minutes, 5000 night and weekends starting at 9 pm, unlimited mobile to mobile, national coverage (assuming they have coverage where you are), and Rollover minutes. While it is weaker than Sprint's plan in the night and weekends (only 5000 minutes compared to Sprint's unlimited and starts at 9 pm rather than Sprints 7 pm), it is made up to a large degree by Rollover minutes. Plus, 5000 minutes is nothing to sneeze at...you would have to talk more than 2.5 hours each night/weekend day of the month assuming a 30 day month to use them all up.

And Verizon has a similar plan...$40 for 450 minutes, unlimited night and weekend starting at 9, unlimited mobile to mobile, national coverage.

[smax013]

ivorycruncher said:

They don't? That's awesome then. I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere in the fine print for Verizon's plans, so I was afraid all the carriers were pulling that fast one. I still believe Verizon is my best choice going forward, but this is definitely a major negative point for them.

Verizon does not count the mobile to mobile minutes against you plan minutes (if you do a Nationwide plan). From the Verizon site:



Look in the upper, left corner.

[tman]

Smax013:

price per text in the Philippines is 1 peso ($1 US= 47 pesos)--don't know what the per minute call charge is (this is for a pay as you go plan).

and...you can buy just about any phone there (that you can buy here) UNLOCKED for about half of what a locked one cost here.

I am thinkin that US providers are a bit more greedy than asian providers....perhaps.

[free2speak]

Ivorycruncher you maybe correct for some of the Tracfone "cards" double minutes for only 1 year. I saw a fathers day special card for 1 year double minutes so that might be it. However, this Motorola W376g phone specifically states double minutes for the "life of the phone".

I agree with you I hate all the little loopholes they put in to restrict your use of the phone. It is this price when you call at this time, but it costs more to call at another time. The in-network sounds all good if I could only get everyone I know on the same network, but it is basically another way these companies try to lock you and others into their service. If you make a lot of calls then a plan maybe best for you, but you will pay. I still have my landline, and 3 cents a minute from Pioneer long distance so I will use that for my main phone.

[iseeuu]

Wrong! Your not the only one not buying a text bundle. OK, so its $10/mth for the wife and me. I should pay $120/year to avoid a dollar or two for an occasional text message? NOT

[qwester]

Prices rise til demand falls. Economics 101. We need many more carriers, like 10 times more. Text only carriers using spread spectrum wireless networks would work well. A text message is on line for only a fraction of a second so it should be almost free. Phones would have both capabilities. Texting is like the old telegraph system of the 19th century. There is no need to further burden the phone system with such traffic.