AT&T Minimum Texting Plan Price Quadruples in One Year

On 8/22/2011 10:34 AM, nospam wrote:

<snip>

> there's no need for unlimited data to avoid texting plans. text
> messages are small. you'd have to send a *lot* of texts for it to
> matter.

Yes, that's true. Text messaging costs the carrier so little in network
capacity but they charge so much for it. Well except Pageplus, which
recently lowered their per text charge for pay as you go to 5¢ each
(from 8¢), and increased the number of texts on the TnT 1200 plan from
2000 to 3000.

---

› See More: AT&T Minimum Texting Plan Price Quadruples in One Year

In article <[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:

> > there's no need for unlimited data to avoid texting plans. text
> > messages are small. you'd have to send a *lot* of texts for it to
> > matter.
>
> Yes, that's true. Text messaging costs the carrier so little in network
> capacity but they charge so much for it.

it's true that text messages are ridiculously overpriced, but that's
not the point.

if you don't send a lot of text messages, you don't need a text
messaging plan at all. get one of the various free text messaging apps
and text for *free). they do use data but since text messages are
small, it will have minimal impact.

> Well except Pageplus, which
> recently lowered their per text charge for pay as you go to 5¢ each
> (from 8¢), and increased the number of texts on the TnT 1200 plan from
> 2000 to 3000.

can't resist your page plus plug can you? other carriers may have as
good or better rates for text messaging. platinumtel charges 2c for all
text messages and t-mobile charges 5c for incoming texts.

In article <[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:

> > there's no need for unlimited data to avoid texting plans. text
> > messages are small. you'd have to send a *lot* of texts for it to
> > matter.
>
> Yes, that's true. Text messaging costs the carrier so little in network
> capacity but they charge so much for it.

it's true that text messages are ridiculously overpriced, but that's
not the point.

if you don't send a lot of text messages, you don't need a text
messaging plan at all. get one of the various free text messaging apps
and text for *free). they do use data but since text messages are
small, it will have minimal impact.

> Well except Pageplus, which
> recently lowered their per text charge for pay as you go to 5¢ each
> (from 8¢), and increased the number of texts on the TnT 1200 plan from
> 2000 to 3000.

can't resist your page plus plug can you? other carriers may have as
good or better rates for text messaging. platinumtel charges 2c for all
text messages and t-mobile charges 5c for incoming texts.

On 8/22/2011 4:02 PM, nospam wrote:

> can't resist your page plus plug can you? other carriers may have as
> good or better rates for text messaging. platinumtel charges 2c for all
> text messages and t-mobile charges 5c for incoming texts.

Platinumtel is indeed a good deal, but the coverage is very poor since
it's limited solely to the native Sprint network.

Very strange statement on their web site: "Free on-network nationwide
roaming." If you're on their network, you're not roaming, and in fact
they do not offer any roaming at all. They are as bad as Virgin Mobile.

On 8/22/2011 4:02 PM, nospam wrote:

> can't resist your page plus plug can you? other carriers may have as
> good or better rates for text messaging. platinumtel charges 2c for all
> text messages and t-mobile charges 5c for incoming texts.

Platinumtel is indeed a good deal, but the coverage is very poor since
it's limited solely to the native Sprint network.

Very strange statement on their web site: "Free on-network nationwide
roaming." If you're on their network, you're not roaming, and in fact
they do not offer any roaming at all. They are as bad as Virgin Mobile.

In article <[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Platinumtel is indeed a good deal, but the coverage is very poor since
> it's limited solely to the native Sprint network.

sprint coverage (and therefore p-tel) is actually quite good.

> Very strange statement on their web site: "Free on-network nationwide
> roaming." If you're on their network, you're not roaming, and in fact
> they do not offer any roaming at all. They are as bad as Virgin Mobile.

on-network roaming is outside your home city but on their towers (in
this case, sprint since it's an mvno). off-network is for other towers.

In article <[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Platinumtel is indeed a good deal, but the coverage is very poor since
> it's limited solely to the native Sprint network.

sprint coverage (and therefore p-tel) is actually quite good.

> Very strange statement on their web site: "Free on-network nationwide
> roaming." If you're on their network, you're not roaming, and in fact
> they do not offer any roaming at all. They are as bad as Virgin Mobile.

on-network roaming is outside your home city but on their towers (in
this case, sprint since it's an mvno). off-network is for other towers.

On 8/22/2011 4:26 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, SMS
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Platinumtel is indeed a good deal, but the coverage is very poor since
>> it's limited solely to the native Sprint network.
>
> sprint coverage (and therefore p-tel) is actually quite good.

Not according to Sprint's and Platinumtel's own maps.

Some of my test zips when evaluating carriers are (with Platinumtel
coverage listed):

Crater Lake OR, 97604: None
Hamburg MN, 55339: Fair
Yosemite NP, 95389: None
Glacier NP, 59434: None
Kirkwood, CA, 95646: None
Crescent City, CA, 95531: None

Every one of those locations has coverage on Sprint postpaid because of
included roaming onto Verizon, Golden State Cellular, or U.S. Cellular.
But on Platinumtel or Virgin you can't roam, even at extra cost. That's
always been the issue with Sprint MVNOs, they are okay in urban areas
where Sprint has a network, but useless in most rural areas (other than
for 911 calls), where Sprint coverage is roaming coverage.

Everyone of those locations also has coverage on Pageplus, albeit at
extra cost if it's on U.S. Cellular or Golden State Cellular. I got
dinged on that last month in Oregon, but only for 29¢. I was coming into
Medford on Crater Lake Highway and was roaming onto U.S. Cellular.

Sprint can be a very good deal because of roaming, other than the
problem that the phone won't roam if it detects a Sprint signal too weak
to make or receive calls on. This is a big problem with Sprint in my
area, where they have coverage, but it's marginal in may areas. You can
no longer force the handset to roam onto Verizon.

On 8/22/2011 4:26 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, SMS
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Platinumtel is indeed a good deal, but the coverage is very poor since
>> it's limited solely to the native Sprint network.
>
> sprint coverage (and therefore p-tel) is actually quite good.

Not according to Sprint's and Platinumtel's own maps.

Some of my test zips when evaluating carriers are (with Platinumtel
coverage listed):

Crater Lake OR, 97604: None
Hamburg MN, 55339: Fair
Yosemite NP, 95389: None
Glacier NP, 59434: None
Kirkwood, CA, 95646: None
Crescent City, CA, 95531: None

Every one of those locations has coverage on Sprint postpaid because of
included roaming onto Verizon, Golden State Cellular, or U.S. Cellular.
But on Platinumtel or Virgin you can't roam, even at extra cost. That's
always been the issue with Sprint MVNOs, they are okay in urban areas
where Sprint has a network, but useless in most rural areas (other than
for 911 calls), where Sprint coverage is roaming coverage.

Everyone of those locations also has coverage on Pageplus, albeit at
extra cost if it's on U.S. Cellular or Golden State Cellular. I got
dinged on that last month in Oregon, but only for 29¢. I was coming into
Medford on Crater Lake Highway and was roaming onto U.S. Cellular.

Sprint can be a very good deal because of roaming, other than the
problem that the phone won't roam if it detects a Sprint signal too weak
to make or receive calls on. This is a big problem with Sprint in my
area, where they have coverage, but it's marginal in may areas. You can
no longer force the handset to roam onto Verizon.

On 8/22/2011 5:00 PM, SMS wrote:

> Crater Lake OR, 97604: None
> Hamburg MN, 55339: Fair
> Yosemite NP, 95389: None
> Glacier NP, 59434: None
> Kirkwood, CA, 95646: None
> Crescent City, CA, 95531: None

And not to pick on Sprint's MVNOs too much, three of those places have
no T-Mobile coverage, and two have no AT&T coverage. The T-Mobile
acquisition would be good for coverage since with a combined network,
only one of those areas would have no coverage at all.

On 8/22/2011 5:00 PM, SMS wrote:

> Crater Lake OR, 97604: None
> Hamburg MN, 55339: Fair
> Yosemite NP, 95389: None
> Glacier NP, 59434: None
> Kirkwood, CA, 95646: None
> Crescent City, CA, 95531: None

And not to pick on Sprint's MVNOs too much, three of those places have
no T-Mobile coverage, and two have no AT&T coverage. The T-Mobile
acquisition would be good for coverage since with a combined network,
only one of those areas would have no coverage at all.

In article <[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:

> > Crater Lake OR, 97604: None
> > Hamburg MN, 55339: Fair
> > Yosemite NP, 95389: None
> > Glacier NP, 59434: None
> > Kirkwood, CA, 95646: None
> > Crescent City, CA, 95531: None
>
> And not to pick on Sprint's MVNOs too much, three of those places have
> no T-Mobile coverage, and two have no AT&T coverage. The T-Mobile
> acquisition would be good for coverage since with a combined network,
> only one of those areas would have no coverage at all.

those are rural areas where people rarely go, which is why there's not
much coverage there.

In article <[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:

> > Crater Lake OR, 97604: None
> > Hamburg MN, 55339: Fair
> > Yosemite NP, 95389: None
> > Glacier NP, 59434: None
> > Kirkwood, CA, 95646: None
> > Crescent City, CA, 95531: None
>
> And not to pick on Sprint's MVNOs too much, three of those places have
> no T-Mobile coverage, and two have no AT&T coverage. The T-Mobile
> acquisition would be good for coverage since with a combined network,
> only one of those areas would have no coverage at all.

those are rural areas where people rarely go, which is why there's not
much coverage there.

On 8/22/2011 5:32 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, SMS
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Crater Lake OR, 97604: None
>>> Hamburg MN, 55339: Fair
>>> Yosemite NP, 95389: None
>>> Glacier NP, 59434: None
>>> Kirkwood, CA, 95646: None
>>> Crescent City, CA, 95531: None
>>
>> And not to pick on Sprint's MVNOs too much, three of those places have
>> no T-Mobile coverage, and two have no AT&T coverage. The T-Mobile
>> acquisition would be good for coverage since with a combined network,
>> only one of those areas would have no coverage at all.
>
> those are rural areas where people rarely go, which is why there's not
> much coverage there.

But lots of people go through rural areas. Lots of people go to
Yosemite, Kirkwood Ski area, & Glacier National Park, and lots of people
drive up the coast through far northwestern California. I chose Hamburg,
MN, only because some friends of mine live there (they are on T-Mobile)
and they came on a trip up the Pacific Coast with us in July. It was
very annoying to be calling them and often having the call go to voice
mail because of the lack of T-Mobile coverage.

But yes, if you never leave urban areas, you can get by with a carrier
that has poor rural coverage, and I know there are people that never go
on trips outside cities. A while back I recall one person stating that
because of Cingular's lack of coverage in many parts of northern
California he had to plan his vacation travels around where they had
coverage! Personally I can't imagine doing this sort of thing. Even if I
had a carrier with poor rural coverage for $30 a year I'd keep a phone
active on Pageplus just as a safety net.

On 8/22/2011 5:32 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, SMS
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Crater Lake OR, 97604: None
>>> Hamburg MN, 55339: Fair
>>> Yosemite NP, 95389: None
>>> Glacier NP, 59434: None
>>> Kirkwood, CA, 95646: None
>>> Crescent City, CA, 95531: None
>>
>> And not to pick on Sprint's MVNOs too much, three of those places have
>> no T-Mobile coverage, and two have no AT&T coverage. The T-Mobile
>> acquisition would be good for coverage since with a combined network,
>> only one of those areas would have no coverage at all.
>
> those are rural areas where people rarely go, which is why there's not
> much coverage there.

But lots of people go through rural areas. Lots of people go to
Yosemite, Kirkwood Ski area, & Glacier National Park, and lots of people
drive up the coast through far northwestern California. I chose Hamburg,
MN, only because some friends of mine live there (they are on T-Mobile)
and they came on a trip up the Pacific Coast with us in July. It was
very annoying to be calling them and often having the call go to voice
mail because of the lack of T-Mobile coverage.

But yes, if you never leave urban areas, you can get by with a carrier
that has poor rural coverage, and I know there are people that never go
on trips outside cities. A while back I recall one person stating that
because of Cingular's lack of coverage in many parts of northern
California he had to plan his vacation travels around where they had
coverage! Personally I can't imagine doing this sort of thing. Even if I
had a carrier with poor rural coverage for $30 a year I'd keep a phone
active on Pageplus just as a safety net.