How many users actually benefit from $99 unlimited?

Paul Miner wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:44:09 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> CellGuy wrote:
>>
>>> I've been with Vonage for almost as year and it works great.
>> It works okay, but it's very expensive, and feature limited compared to
>> other VOIP options.
>
> "Very expensive" is relative. It's much cheaper than some options and
> more expensive than others. I'm well into my 3rd year with the $15/mo
> plan and have no complaints.

Sorry, when I said "very expensive" I was comparing it to other VOIP
plans, not to other unlimited long distance plans offered by companies
like AT&T, or to carrier VOIP plans such as offered by Comcast.

At 22 Feb 2008 13:33:14 -0500 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> Well, I do agree that it will be a disguised price increase--beyond even
> what they've done over the past two years, which is large.

Agreed.


> But it just means that more people won't pay the $50 to $75/month, and
> will instead move to prepaid.

You give people too much credit! ;-) Who'd have thought years ago that
"basic cable" would start at $50/month?

I never thought people would tolerate $40/month as entry-level cellular and
it hasn't stopped them! (My first cellular plan was $14.99/month for TEN
minutes a month back in 1990 or so!) If $40 wasn't a problem, $50 won't be
either, unfortunately.

At 22 Feb 2008 15:16:12 -0500 Carl wrote:

> > Yes, T-Mobile is a great deal for a lot of peak minutes. Unfortunately
> > they have no coverage yet where I live, and poor coverage where I
> > usually travel to.
> >
> If they had better coverage, they wouldn't be only $40! There's a point
> there somewhere that some seem to miss. Maybe it's me. Sorry.


Or maybe believing that is how Verizon's and AT&T's customers get to sleep
at night! ;-)

At 22 Feb 2008 10:15:55 -0800 SMS wrote:

> LOL, well in a large corporation they have a telecommunications
> department that would handle billing and equpment issues, and
> presumably they'd be able to ensure that all the phones were operational.

I know, I was just Being facetious.

> There are no physical refill cards to hand out, and when on the unlimited
> plan there is no worry about someone running out of minutes.

Actually there is- the unlimited plan isn't billed monthly, but daily. The
daily $2-2.50 is taken from the balance as is texting and roaming charges.
Five minutes of roaming (or a few dozen texts!) will eat a day of unlimited
use, so you need to stay on top of your balance (and with PP's lack of any
online account maintenance, that's relatively difficult.)

A lot of them will benefit including business users like me.


"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
news:YRLvj.11502$Xo1.7300@fe085.usenetserver.com.. .
> At 22 Feb 2008 10:15:55 -0800 SMS wrote:
>
>> LOL, well in a large corporation they have a telecommunications
>> department that would handle billing and equpment issues, and
>> presumably they'd be able to ensure that all the phones were operational.
>
> I know, I was just Being facetious.
>
>> There are no physical refill cards to hand out, and when on the unlimited
>> plan there is no worry about someone running out of minutes.
>
> Actually there is- the unlimited plan isn't billed monthly, but daily.
> The
> daily $2-2.50 is taken from the balance as is texting and roaming charges.
> Five minutes of roaming (or a few dozen texts!) will eat a day of
> unlimited
> use, so you need to stay on top of your balance (and with PP's lack of any
> online account maintenance, that's relatively difficult.)
>
>

On 2008-02-22, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> At 22 Feb 2008 15:55:05 +0000 CellGuy wrote:
>
>> > 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).
>
> How do you get "no long distance charges" with VoIP unless you're only
> calling other VoIP users? (Unless you are ignoring the monthly or annual
> fees and really mean "no EXTRA charges.")

You can get "no long distance charges" with Rebtel (no monthly fees either),
though this depends on the called party hanging up and calling back to
reconnect.

This is a very good way to turn unlimited local calling plans in two
different countries into unlimited overseas long distance.

Dennis Ferguson

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 22 Feb 2008 13:33:14 -0500 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>> Well, I do agree that it will be a disguised price increase--beyond even
>> what they've done over the past two years, which is large.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>> But it just means that more people won't pay the $50 to $75/month, and
>> will instead move to prepaid.
>
> You give people too much credit! ;-) Who'd have thought years ago that
> "basic cable" would start at $50/month?

I've been out of the loop having had satellite for quite a few years,
but I recently looked at the Comcast web site and I was amazed to see
how much cable costs now. Satellite is no bargain, but it's far less
expensive than the equivalent programming from Comcast.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 22 Feb 2008 15:16:12 -0500 Carl wrote:
>
>>> Yes, T-Mobile is a great deal for a lot of peak minutes. Unfortunately
>>> they have no coverage yet where I live, and poor coverage where I
>>> usually travel to.
>>>
>> If they had better coverage, they wouldn't be only $40! There's a point
>> there somewhere that some seem to miss. Maybe it's me. Sorry.
>
>
> Or maybe believing that is how Verizon's and AT&T's customers get to sleep
> at night! ;-)

Yes, that's how I am able to sleep.

Seriously though, I have two GSM phones without 800 MHz, my original
Cingular GSM phone from when Cingular out west was only 1900 MHz, and my
tri-mode "traveling phone" which is 900/1800/1900. If I put my SIM card
into one of those phones, which limits me to roaming on the T-Mobile
network with SpeakOut (an AT&T MVNO), the loss of coverage is very
noticeable (starting with no coverage where I live, unless I go outside
and down the street a bit).

The big problem with T-Mo, is that they won't let you roam onto AT&T in
areas where they have a network. According to some Sprint users, if you
set your handset to roaming only then Sprint does allow roaming onto
Verizon even in areas where Sprint has a network.

At 23 Feb 2008 08:10:08 -0800 SMS wrote:

> > Or maybe believing that is how Verizon's and AT&T's customers get to
sleep
> > at night! ;-)
>
> Yes, that's how I am able to sleep.
>
> Seriously though, I have two GSM phones without 800 MHz, my original
> Cingular GSM phone from when Cingular out west was only 1900 MHz,
> and my tri-mode "traveling phone" which is 900/1800/1900.

In this day and age, however, not using a GSM cellphone with 850 doesn't
really give you the right to complain about crummy GSM service that you
claim to "test" on a regular basis. Particularly in light of your
statements about places you've been with "only analog or CDMA and no GSM
coverage..." Without GSM 850, (which is what AT&T's analog footprint has
converted to) those statements are VERY suspect.


> If I put my SIM card into one of those phones, which limits me to
> roaming on the T-Mobile network with SpeakOut (an AT&T MVNO), the
> loss of coverage is very noticeable (starting with no coverage where
> I live, unless I go outside and down the street a bit).


Fair enough. I've already acknowledged T-Mo doesn't have as extensive a
network as Verizon, and if it didn't work where I lived I wouldn't use them
either.

However, as I've pointed out before, when I moved to my current house, I
was in the opposite, and admittedly _very_ rare situation- neither
Verizon nor AT&T had no coverage here yet Sprint and T-Mo did! (Four years
later, they all have coverage now.)

> The big problem with T-Mo, is that they won't let you roam onto AT&T
> in areas where they have a network.

That's a problem with most carriers- Verizon doesn't let you roam if they
have coverage in the area either, though admittedly that "problem" will
happen less often than with T-Mo! ;-)

> According to some Sprint users, if you set your handset to roaming
> only then Sprint does allow roaming onto Verizon even in areas where
> Sprint has a network.

Neat feature, but I've never tried Sprint so I can't confirm or deny.

Todd Allcock wrote:

> In this day and age, however, not using a GSM cellphone with 850 doesn't
> really give you the right to complain about crummy GSM service that you
> claim to "test" on a regular basis. Particularly in light of your
> statements about places you've been with "only analog or CDMA and no GSM
> coverage..." Without GSM 850, (which is what AT&T's analog footprint has
> converted to) those statements are VERY suspect.

Yes, I use a very good 850/1900 Motorola model handset for GSM testing
on AT&T Wireless, I just tried the SIM in the 1900 MHz models because I
wanted to see if T-Mobile had added coverage to my area.

> That's a problem with most carriers- Verizon doesn't let you roam if they
> have coverage in the area either, though admittedly that "problem" will
> happen less often than with T-Mo! ;-)

There was one building at a company I worked at where I was constantly
roaming onto Sprint in one specific conference room. This was several
years ago, but apparently there are or were PRLs where Sprint roaming
was permitted even in Verizon markets.

> Neat feature, but I've never tried Sprint so I can't confirm or deny.

Someday I'll find a Sprint subscriber in my area and be able to confirm
or deny this, but I've not yet met one. Everyone I know uses either AT&T
or Verizon (or T-Mobile prepaid). I do know one Sprint subscriber in
Florida and one in L.A., so maybe the next time I see them I'll try it.
The Sprint coverage in most of California is nearly as bad as T-Mobile's
coverage.