How many users actually benefit from $99 unlimited?

George wrote:

> I am a heavy user but unlimited is of no value to me because of free
> m2m. All of my family and most of my friends and associates are on VZW.
> So an unlimited package would cost me even more.

Maybe part of the carrier's plan is to eliminate M2M and off-peak.
They've reduced off-peak times in the past, eliminating holidays.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:46:21 -0800, SMS wrote:

> The
> downside is no free nights and weekends, but in reality the only reason
> people talk so much on their cell phones on N&W is because it's free.
> They could get a 2¢/minute long distance service and still be better off
> in most cases.

Or go with VoiP and pay no long distance charges (assuming you have
broadband).

George wrote:

> I bet many people don't realize how Mickey Mouse some carriers are.
> Tmobile doesn't believe in generators and at least in my area the old
> AT&T TDMA/analog sites had generators but now the GSM stuff just has
> battery.

Verizon claims to have generators at every site where generators are
permitted (80%). AT&T claims to have generators at enough sites to
provide complete geographic coverage, but at reduced capacity. This may
be why Verizon tends to do better in blackouts and other disasters where
power is interrupted.

I couldn't find any information on Sprint and T-Mobile's back-up power
infrastructure, other than Sprint's press release of installing
generators at some sites in Florida and Texas. Just looking at some of
the strange places that Sprint and T-Mobile have had to install sites in
order to get complete coverage, where generators aren't allowed, there
is just no way they could equal the AT&T and Verizon coverage in a
prolonged blackout.

CellGuy wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:46:21 -0800, SMS wrote:
>
>> The
>> downside is no free nights and weekends, but in reality the only reason
>> people talk so much on their cell phones on N&W is because it's free.
>> They could get a 2¢/minute long distance service and still be better off
>> in most cases.
>
> Or go with VoiP and pay no long distance charges (assuming you have
> broadband).

VOIP isn't free either. You can purchase a yearly plan or get MagicJack
and hope they stay in business, and hope they keep the price at $19.95
for subsequent years. SunRocket tried $200, then $100, and couldn't make
a go of it.

In article <47bedd2a$0$36348$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Yes, I have a feeling that between off-peak and MTM, very few
> subscribers will benefit from a move up to $100 unlimited, while nearly
> _all_ of the heavy users (not using smart phones) will move down to $100
> unlimited.

I can see the carriers dramatically changing the non-unlimited plans,
making them very expensive relative to the unlimited plans. They could
also reduce/eliminate off-peak and MTM. The idea would be to move
people off their $70/mo plans and up to the $100/mo plan (plus
"regulatory fee recovery" charges, natch).

On the flip side, it moves many over to the prepaid side of the house in
one way or another--which is no doubt what the big carriers want.

It'll just turn into an even clearer definition between prepaid and
contract, that's all.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <47bedd2a$0$36348$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I have a feeling that between off-peak and MTM, very few
>> subscribers will benefit from a move up to $100 unlimited, while nearly
>> _all_ of the heavy users (not using smart phones) will move down to $100
>> unlimited.
>
> I can see the carriers dramatically changing the non-unlimited plans,
> making them very expensive relative to the unlimited plans. They could
> also reduce/eliminate off-peak and MTM. The idea would be to move
> people off their $70/mo plans and up to the $100/mo plan (plus
> "regulatory fee recovery" charges, natch).
>
> On the flip side, it moves many over to the prepaid side of the house in
> one way or another--which is no doubt what the big carriers want.
>
> It'll just turn into an even clearer definition between prepaid and
> contract, that's all.

Yeah, so far the carriers seem to have been willing to continue the
contract terms of the original contract on a continuing basis, even
though they really aren't required to do so. I'm keeping my
grandfathered plan simply because if I drop it I can never get by 8:01
p.m. off-peak back, nor can I get back off-network roaming, nor can I
get my sub-$30 monthly cost back.

At some point the carriers may tire of continuing to provide service to
those of us with those $30 ARPUs. They can also decide to cut off the
low-priced MVNOs to eliminate that escape route for those that don't
want to spend a lot.

M.L. wrote:
>> Also, in natural disasters, often the wireless networks are overloaded
>> or go down, but landlines still work.
>
>
> Actually, just the opposite is true. Granted, as usual you showed an
> exception to the rule in order to pass it along as the rule. However,
> during most natural disasters it's the landlines that go down first.

Don't cell phones eventually connect via landlines? It seems to me that
it's cell phone to tower by air, tower to central office by wire,
Central office to central office by wire, central office to tower by
wire and tower to cell by air. For wire, you may substitute fiber
optics, if the local phone company is REALLY up-to-date.

Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> M.L. wrote:
>>> Also, in natural disasters, often the wireless networks are overloaded
>>> or go down, but landlines still work.
>>
>>
>> Actually, just the opposite is true. Granted, as usual you showed an
>> exception to the rule in order to pass it along as the rule. However,
>> during most natural disasters it's the landlines that go down first.
>
> Don't cell phones eventually connect via landlines? It seems to me that
> it's cell phone to tower by air, tower to central office by wire,
> Central office to central office by wire, central office to tower by
> wire and tower to cell by air. For wire, you may substitute fiber
> optics, if the local phone company is REALLY up-to-date.

Yes, this is why landlines are usually more reliable in the event of a
natural disaster (unless of course the wire to your house is knocked down).

SMS wrote:
> George wrote:
>
>> I bet many people don't realize how Mickey Mouse some carriers are.
>> Tmobile doesn't believe in generators and at least in my area the old
>> AT&T TDMA/analog sites had generators but now the GSM stuff just has
>> battery.
>
> Verizon claims to have generators at every site where generators are
> permitted (80%). AT&T claims to have generators at enough sites to
> provide complete geographic coverage, but at reduced capacity. This may
> be why Verizon tends to do better in blackouts and other disasters where
> power is interrupted.
>
> I couldn't find any information on Sprint and T-Mobile's back-up power
> infrastructure, other than Sprint's press release of installing
> generators at some sites in Florida and Texas. Just looking at some of
> the strange places that Sprint and T-Mobile have had to install sites in
> order to get complete coverage, where generators aren't allowed, there
> is just no way they could equal the AT&T and Verizon coverage in a
> prolonged blackout.

Sprint and tmobile have connectors on their equipment so a portable
generator can be connected. They do this even when generators are
allowed. There is a colo site behind a place that I frequently visit.
VZW, Sprint, AT&T, Nextel and tmobile are on it. The only generator
there is for the VZW equipment. According to the Sprint guy I bumped
into one time they have 4 trailer mounted generators to cover their
local 30,000 square mile market and they are located over an hour's
drive from here.

At 22 Feb 2008 10:07:32 -0500 George wrote:


> I need my phone to work when I am out so it isn't worth it to me. There
> are just too many places where tmobile lacks coverage as soon as
> you leave the core city area or go away from the highway.

That certainly may be true in your area, but it also could be that you just
may not be aware of the improvements made in their coverage over the last
two years or so (mostly through roaming agreements.) Rural coverage in
particular has been greatly improved. Some carriers, even small CDMA
carriers (like Alltel in some areas) actually operate small GSM system
overlays just to skim roaming revenues from AT&T and T-Mobile.

While I'd never suggest T-Mo's Coverage is anywhere near as extensive as
Verizon's, they've come a Very long way since I first used them in 2001.
(Back then I used them for their 3000 minutes/$49 regional plan as a
business phone, and kept a seperate Cingular TDMA/AMPS phone as my personal
phone, which doubled as a much-needed backup for T-Mo's piss-poor coverage
at that time.)

I still keep a backup phone (prepaid, these days) for T-Mo to this day,
mostly out of habit, but rarely need it. In fact I went without a backup
for most of 2007, since Beyond Wireless TDMA shut down last March, and I
didn't activate a phone on PagePlus until Thanksgiving (still unused
despite a lot of travel to various Colorado ski areas this winter.)

You might be surprised at how much they've improved. Don't let
preconcieved (but correct!) notions of how crummy their coverage was
several years ago cloud your opinions.