Look! They call this retention offer?

"Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John Richards wrote:
> >
> > Comparing cellphones to MP3 players, I think cell phones are a
> > bargain. You can't get a decent MP3 player for much under $200, yet
> > all they
> > have is a low tech audio chip, no complex RF tuners, etc.
>
> Comparing a cell phone to a music player is a bit of a stretch, unless
> the discussion is about MP3-playing phones. But for the record, I can
> buy a 4 GB iPod Mini for around $230. Considering a 4 GB microdrive
> costs around $185, I'd say an extra $55 for the iPod itself is a pretty
> good deal.
>
> How about something a little closer though, say, cordless phones. I just
> bought, for a whopping $130, a cordless 5.8 GHz "system." The base unit
> came with two handsets, but there was a "bundle sale" which offered a
> third handset for no additional charge (methinks the offer was prolly
> due to competition, but what do I know). In essence, I bought my own
> wireless phone system, including the base station. And this is not
> exactly featureless. It includes: built-in answering machine (accessible
> from any handset), animated graphical display, walkie-talkie mode
> between handsets, speaker-phone on handsets as well as base-station,
> room monitor mode (works great), large phone-book with distinctive ring
> for incoming calls, and of course tons of ringers.
>
> Sounds to me like that's a heck of a lot of stuff for $130. And no
> subsidy lock! I actually could have purchased any of the dozen or so
> different models/brands and any one of them would have worked with my
> phone-line. That wasn't the case in the cell phone section. YMMV.
>


And at a $130, not a bad deal. But does the phone-
-communicate with the base station from more than a few hundred feet away?
-allow you to view internet content directly on the phone?
-take pictures?
-allow pictures to be viewed.
-have voice-activated dialing?
-have the ability to download and play games?
-allow you to view and send email?

Now, if you look at your $130 phones (which is actually quite cheap for 5.8
GHz phones) and estimate the cost of the additional functionality for each
phone, what do you come up with? And how does it compare to a basic cell
phone?

---

› See More: Look! They call this retention offer?

Thank you Tinman for understanding what I was trying to convey. You seem
to understand my situation/dilemma. Yes, I am willing to pay $80 or $90
or even $100 for the 3 lines in a Family Plan but I was hoping for
something a little better than what the 1st rep offered.

Yes, I am on the el cheapo $30 plan but we have 2 phones hence $60 on a
single account name. And Yes, like Isiah said, we have never ever
missed a single payment in the 6 years we have been with SprintPcs.
OOoh I had better remember to mention that the next time I call Sprint
again. I know for a fact that Sprint was having some problems earlier
cos of deadbeats.

And Yes, we bought our phones back in 1999 without a rebate or discount.

I would be very happy with any of those retention plans that you guys
mentioned. Hey what is the difference if Sprint offered you a $100
retention plan to keep you. I am willing to pay the $100 that you may
be paying now. Isn't that a $100 revenue for Sprint regardless of what
I had before? Makes no sense that some of you keep saying that my el
cheapo $60 is not a money maker for Sprint and hence no good retention
plan since the new retention plan of $100 if offered to me would
certainly make them money just like yours. $100 is $100 to Sprint.

I am not even hoping for a deal as good as what some of you had gotten.
Just something more decent that what was offered.

Tinman wrote:
> Bob Smith wrote:
>
>>"Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Steve Sobol wrote:
>>>
>>>>Better retention plans go to people who spend more money, generally.
>>>>You're not even on the bare-minimum plan anymore, as the $30/300
>>>>plan
>>>>is gone and the least expensive plan is now $35.
>>>
>>>C'mon folks, at least read what the guy wrote. He was on TWO $30
>>>plans. Yes he was getting a 5% discount (3 whole dollars), but he
>>>was still paying SPCS $57 for the last six years. There are
>>>certainly people here that have gotten retention deals when spending
>>>around $60 per month.
>>>
>>>However, I believe that since he kept two separate plans the SPCS rep
>>>was unable to "finagle" the system to come up with anything better
>>>for him. If I were him, I would at least make one more attempt, and
>>>make
>>>sure the rep is aware of just how much he was spending. If the folks
>>>here missed it, you can bet your ass the SPCS rep did too.
>>
>>I agree with some of your points Mike, that the rep could not finagle
>>the system. In saying that, 2 $30 accts doesn't generate much if any
>>revenue, if those were two actively used accounts.
>>
>
>
> We can argue about $60 being too low; I have no problem with that. But I
> read Steve's post--perhaps incorrectly--as a borderline insult because
> the guy was only spending $30 per month. I felt that was out of line, as
> the guy had, according to him, been spending twice that for many years.
> It also seemed obvious that he was willing--I'd say expecting--to pay
> even more than $60 per month. He just wasn't happy with what they
> offered for $80 per month.
>
>
>
>>As for those sweet retention deals provided in the past, like the one
>>I negotiated 14 months or so ago, I don't believe they are offered as
>>much, if any now.
>>
>
>
> Yep, it sure seems that way. I still think the OP can do better than
> what he was offered though.
>
>
>
>>Got 1200 minutes for 3 phones, for $60/mo. N & W start @ 8:00 PM. Add
>>$5 for PCS2PCS and $15 for Vision on the primary phone and $5 on one
>>other phone. Also got 5% off the monthly expense, so after taxes &
>>surcharges, the monthly expense runs $94 or so. If I were to drop
>>Vision, I suspect the expense would drop down to less than $80 mo.
>>
>
>
> My deal has been renegotiated so many times I'm afraid to have anyone
> touch it. I pay 59.99 for 2,000 minutes, plus 20.00 each for two shared
> phones. Vision is not listed as a separate line-item ("$59.99 PCS Free
> and Clear with Vision"), and it's unlimited on all three phones (ditto
> for text messages). I of course have unlimited N&Ws and PCS-to-PCS. My
> last "retention" deal only got me 7PM N&W--but my contract was not
> extended (it expired last year). My total bill comes in at around $115
> per month. I rarely use more than 75% of my anytime minutes, so it's
> hard to say if I'd be better off with a plan like yours (assuming I
> could even get it nowadays).
>
>

SS wrote:
> "Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> Sounds to me like that's a heck of a lot of stuff for $130. And no
>> subsidy lock! I actually could have purchased any of the dozen or so
>> different models/brands and any one of them would have worked with my
>> phone-line. That wasn't the case in the cell phone section. YMMV.
>>
>
>
> And at a $130, not a bad deal. But does the phone-
> -communicate with the base station from more than a few hundred feet
> away?

Actually, yes. But not by much. And that's due it using unlicensed
spectrum, hence mandated transmit power limitations. I have known people
living in remote areas with "modified" cordless phones that do have
ranges of around 2 miles.


> -allow you to view internet content directly on the phone?

Can you use such a feature on a cell phone without incurring an extra
monthly fee?

But if people wanted that feature it would be there. Competition would
keep the prices in check (e.g., the phones I just bought have twice as
many features as the 2-year-old phones they replaced--and they cost
less). But I doubt viewing the Internet on a 1"-2" screen, while you are
already at home, is something folks are clamoring for. Still, if one
maker did provide that feature, and it was well-received, you can bet it
would make it to all brands.


> -take pictures?

Nope. But again, if I'm home I really wouldn't use a crappy camera-phone
(like my Sanyo 8200) to take pictures. Further, some of these features
you are getting into can incur extra monthly charges. Hmmm...


> -allow pictures to be viewed.

Nope. But if I spent $20 or $30 more for the more-expensive model, I
could. I didn't see the need for it. I have (real) pictures hanging on
the walls all over my house. <g>


> -have voice-activated dialing?

Nope. But again, I'm not sure I care about that on a home phone. I need
that when I'm driving, etc. But considering my phones can store more
digital recording (at a higher quality) than my cell phone, I don't
expect it would take much to add it.


> -have the ability to download and play games?

At home? (But I do believe there was a least one model that did have
games. If it becomes a must-have cordless phone feature--which I highly
doubt--it'll be there.)


> -allow you to view and send email?

With my PC 20 feet away? Why? But once again, it can easily be added.
And just like the myriad of other features that have become common on
cordless phones, the price will probably stay the same or go down.
That's what happens in a competitive market.

By the way, the carriers are interested in games, Internet, email,
pictures, etc. not because they want to offer you more features on the
phones. They are motivated to *sell* you the services that those
features are often married to, whether people are clamoring for these
features or not. A cordless phone maker has no such motivation. Can you
see the difference here?


>
> Now, if you look at your $130 phones (which is actually quite cheap
> for 5.8 GHz phones) and estimate the cost of the additional
> functionality for each phone, what do you come up with? And how does
> it compare to a basic cell phone?

It compares well. I purchased *three* phones, and a base-station for
that price (I guess you could say four phones, if I you include the
base-station).

And I have features that are not on my cell phone: one-button
record-a-call (for up to 30 minutes and ironically has only been used
when speaking with a SPCS rep), full-duplex speaker phones (4 of them!),
recharging cradles for each phone, a true hold feature, call transfer to
another handset, room monitor mode (if my wife is in the other room I
can activate that mode to talk with her--and she doesn't even have to
touch her handset, or even be right next to it).

I once used room monitor mode to "hear" a movie that I was watching on
TV. I had to tend to the BBQ but via the cordless phones I could hear
the TV just fine. Finally, the quality of the sound is much better than
my cell phone, particularly the external speakers on even the handsets
(and these phones are digital spread-spectrum).


--
Mike

"Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> SS wrote:
> > "Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>
> >> Sounds to me like that's a heck of a lot of stuff for $130. And no
> >> subsidy lock! I actually could have purchased any of the dozen or so
> >> different models/brands and any one of them would have worked with my
> >> phone-line. That wasn't the case in the cell phone section. YMMV.
> >>
> >
> >
> > And at a $130, not a bad deal. But does the phone-
> > -communicate with the base station from more than a few hundred feet
> > away?
>
> Actually, yes. But not by much. And that's due it using unlicensed
> spectrum, hence mandated transmit power limitations. I have known people
> living in remote areas with "modified" cordless phones that do have
> ranges of around 2 miles.

Yeah- I know a few of those guys, too

>
>
> > -allow you to view internet content directly on the phone?
>
> Can you use such a feature on a cell phone without incurring an extra
> monthly fee?

No, but that's not the issue here. We're talking about the cost of
technology in the phone, not the price to use it.

>
> But if people wanted that feature it would be there. Competition would
> keep the prices in check (e.g., the phones I just bought have twice as
> many features as the 2-year-old phones they replaced--and they cost
> less). But I doubt viewing the Internet on a 1"-2" screen, while you are
> already at home, is something folks are clamoring for. Still, if one
> maker did provide that feature, and it was well-received, you can bet it
> would make it to all brands.

Again, I see your point, but I don't think it applies. I never use my cell
phone at home, yet frequently use the internet functionality when I use my
phone.


>
>
> > -take pictures?
>
> Nope. But again, if I'm home I really wouldn't use a crappy camera-phone
> (like my Sanyo 8200) to take pictures. Further, some of these features
> you are getting into can incur extra monthly charges. Hmmm...

Now I see where you are going- we're talking about two things here. You
jumped into the discussion about the cost of cellular technology and are now
talking solely about landline technology.

>
>
> > -allow pictures to be viewed.
>
> Nope. But if I spent $20 or $30 more for the more-expensive model, I
> could. I didn't see the need for it. I have (real) pictures hanging on
> the walls all over my house. <g>
>
>
> > -have voice-activated dialing?
>
> Nope. But again, I'm not sure I care about that on a home phone. I need
> that when I'm driving, etc. But considering my phones can store more
> digital recording (at a higher quality) than my cell phone, I don't
> expect it would take much to add it.
>
>
> > -have the ability to download and play games?
>
> At home? (But I do believe there was a least one model that did have
> games. If it becomes a must-have cordless phone feature--which I highly
> doubt--it'll be there.)
>
>
> > -allow you to view and send email?
>
> With my PC 20 feet away? Why? But once again, it can easily be added.
> And just like the myriad of other features that have become common on
> cordless phones, the price will probably stay the same or go down.
> That's what happens in a competitive market.
>
> By the way, the carriers are interested in games, Internet, email,
> pictures, etc. not because they want to offer you more features on the
> phones. They are motivated to *sell* you the services that those
> features are often married to, whether people are clamoring for these
> features or not. A cordless phone maker has no such motivation. Can you
> see the difference here?
>
>
> >
> > Now, if you look at your $130 phones (which is actually quite cheap
> > for 5.8 GHz phones) and estimate the cost of the additional
> > functionality for each phone, what do you come up with? And how does
> > it compare to a basic cell phone?
>
> It compares well. I purchased *three* phones, and a base-station for
> that price (I guess you could say four phones, if I you include the
> base-station).

Three phones that have an extremely limited function- use around the house
to answer and make calls. Hardly a technological comparison to the
mini-computer you carry called a cell phone.

>
> And I have features that are not on my cell phone: one-button
> record-a-call (for up to 30 minutes and ironically has only been used
> when speaking with a SPCS rep)

mine has it, although not with a 30 minute capability

, full-duplex speaker phones (4 of them!)

got that, too.
,
> recharging cradles for each phone

Add that to my 'already have' list as well

, a true hold feature

Another feature on my cell

, call transfer to
> another handset

I have that on all of my phones- its called picking up the other phone (the
call is already there)

, room monitor mode (if my wife is in the other room I
> can activate that mode to talk with her--and she doesn't even have to
> touch her handset, or even be right next to it).

No need for that here.

>
> I once used room monitor mode to "hear" a movie that I was watching on
> TV. I had to tend to the BBQ but via the cordless phones I could hear
> the TV just fine. Finally, the quality of the sound is much better than
> my cell phone, particularly the external speakers on even the handsets
> (and these phones are digital spread-spectrum).


I guess its a case of "to each his own". My original point was that the
very limited technology in your cordless phones (no exclusive licensed
technology, very limited functionality) means that to post that you having
three of them that you paid $130 for does not make any kind of argument that
cellular technology can be just as cheap.

> It compares well. I purchased *three* phones, and a base-station for
> that price (I guess you could say four phones, if I you include the
> base-station).

OK, I'm sold. What is the Brand and model of this new cordless phone
system. I want new ones?

SS wrote:
> "Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
<snip>
>>
>> Can you use such a feature on a cell phone without incurring an extra
>> monthly fee?
>
> No, but that's not the issue here. We're talking about the cost of
> technology in the phone, not the price to use it.
>

I know that. But I was illustrating why there is no motivation to add
such features to a cordless phone. If there was, the features would be
there.


>> Nope. But again, if I'm home I really wouldn't use a crappy
>> camera-phone (like my Sanyo 8200) to take pictures. Further, some of
>> these features
>> you are getting into can incur extra monthly charges. Hmmm...
>
> Now I see where you are going- we're talking about two things here.
> You jumped into the discussion about the cost of cellular technology
> and are now talking solely about landline technology.
>

Nope. I was trying to show why certain features might be added to cell
phones: the possibility of the carrier generating additional revenue on
the service-side. Landline phone makers don't have that kind of
motivation. But if their target market demanded all the features found
cell phones they can indeed be added. However, I seriously doubt they
would cost as much as cell phones do (nor do I think the target market
is demanding those features).

>>
>> It compares well. I purchased *three* phones, and a base-station for
>> that price (I guess you could say four phones, if I you include the
>> base-station).
>
> Three phones that have an extremely limited function- use around the
> house to answer and make calls. Hardly a technological comparison to
> the mini-computer you carry called a cell phone.
>

The "magic" of that mini-computer is more in the back-end
infrastructure. Take that away and all your have is a mini-toy.

(BTW, how do you think each of my four phones process digital
spread-spectrum data, and turn it into something meaningful to a human,
vacuum tubes?)


>>
>> And I have features that are not on my cell phone: one-button
>> record-a-call (for up to 30 minutes and ironically has only been used
>> when speaking with a SPCS rep)
>
> mine has it, although not with a 30 minute capability
>

How long can you record a call? I think I get 30 seconds on my cell
phone, assuming that can even be used to record a call.


> , full-duplex speaker phones (4 of them!)
>
> got that, too.
>

What model phone?


>> recharging cradles for each phone
>
> Add that to my 'already have' list as well
>

And it came with the phone? I haven't had a cradle included with a cell
phone in years. I suspect I can buy one, but that's not really the
point. And I do mean phones, not a PDA/phone combo.


>
> , call transfer to
>> another handset
>
> I have that on all of my phones- its called picking up the other
> phone (the call is already there)
>

So if you are in one room, your wife is in another, you use some sort of
mental telepathy to let her know to pick up the other phone, should the
call be for her? <g>

What I meant was that (a) caller is placed on hold, (b) transfer mode is
used to direct a specific handset to ring, (c) handset that answered the
call is put down as the other handset is now ringing (but no other).
Should the other handset not pickup, the call bounces back to the
original handset that took the call. The old way was, "IT'S FOR YOU,
PICK IT UP!!!"

I can get a similar option from my Telco, for a fee. But of course that
would be useless since all the phones I'm talking about utilize the same
RJ-11 jack (that the base station is plugged into).


> , room monitor mode (if my wife is in the other room I
>> can activate that mode to talk with her--and she doesn't even have to
>> touch her handset, or even be right next to it).
>
> No need for that here.
>

That doesn't mean it didn't cost money to implement. I have no need for
half the features on my cell phone.


> My original point was that
> the very limited technology in your cordless phones (no exclusive
> licensed technology, very limited functionality)

My original point was that a comparison to a cordless phone is closer
than comparing a cell phone to an MP3 player. And I disagree with the
point about limited functionality. As far as exclusive licensed
technology, I'd need to know exactly how much Qualcomm is paid per
handset. I suspect it doesn't add much (prolly costs more for the
backend infrastructure, which should not affect handset cost). Even
el-cheapo DVD players included licenses technology, yet they manage to
retail for under $50.


> means that to post
> that you having three of them that you paid $130 for does not make
> any kind of argument that cellular technology can be just as cheap.

In the absence of a true competitive market, there is no way to prove
how inexpensive handsets can be here in the U.S. But I did use an
analogy that should make you wonder just how much it costs--or perhaps
would cost--to make these little devices.

One final note: while the cordless phones I have now cost less and have
more features than the two-year-old models they replaced, they also
*work better* as phones. While my Sanyo 8200 has more features than the
8100 is replaced, it cost more and does not work better as a phone. In
fact I'm thinking of Ebaying that 8200 and going back to the 8100 (till
I decide on a phone that is a true upgrade). YMMV


--
Mike

"Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> SS wrote:
> > "Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> <snip>
> >>
> >> Can you use such a feature on a cell phone without incurring an extra
> >> monthly fee?
> >
> > No, but that's not the issue here. We're talking about the cost of
> > technology in the phone, not the price to use it.
> >
>
> I know that. But I was illustrating why there is no motivation to add
> such features to a cordless phone. If there was, the features would be
> there.

OK- that's fair.

>
>
> >> Nope. But again, if I'm home I really wouldn't use a crappy
> >> camera-phone (like my Sanyo 8200) to take pictures. Further, some of
> >> these features
> >> you are getting into can incur extra monthly charges. Hmmm...
> >
> > Now I see where you are going- we're talking about two things here.
> > You jumped into the discussion about the cost of cellular technology
> > and are now talking solely about landline technology.
> >
>
> Nope. I was trying to show why certain features might be added to cell
> phones: the possibility of the carrier generating additional revenue on
> the service-side. Landline phone makers don't have that kind of
> motivation. But if their target market demanded all the features found
> cell phones they can indeed be added. However, I seriously doubt they
> would cost as much as cell phones do (nor do I think the target market
> is demanding those features).

A good point, but again a little off the beaten path of this thread.

>
> >>
> >> It compares well. I purchased *three* phones, and a base-station for
> >> that price (I guess you could say four phones, if I you include the
> >> base-station).
> >
> > Three phones that have an extremely limited function- use around the
> > house to answer and make calls. Hardly a technological comparison to
> > the mini-computer you carry called a cell phone.
> >
>
> The "magic" of that mini-computer is more in the back-end
> infrastructure. Take that away and all your have is a mini-toy.
>
> (BTW, how do you think each of my four phones process digital
> spread-spectrum data, and turn it into something meaningful to a human,
> vacuum tubes?)
>
>
> >>
> >> And I have features that are not on my cell phone: one-button
> >> record-a-call (for up to 30 minutes and ironically has only been used
> >> when speaking with a SPCS rep)
> >
> > mine has it, although not with a 30 minute capability
> >
>
> How long can you record a call? I think I get 30 seconds on my cell
> phone, assuming that can even be used to record a call.

I haven't really tried yet, but I think its supposed to be about a minute.

>
>
> > , full-duplex speaker phones (4 of them!)
> >
> > got that, too.
> >
>
> What model phone?

Non-Sprint phone- a Motorola, actually.

>
>
> >> recharging cradles for each phone
> >
> > Add that to my 'already have' list as well
> >
>
> And it came with the phone? I haven't had a cradle included with a cell
> phone in years. I suspect I can buy one, but that's not really the
> point. And I do mean phones, not a PDA/phone combo.
>
>
> >
> > , call transfer to
> >> another handset
> >
> > I have that on all of my phones- its called picking up the other
> > phone (the call is already there)
> >
>
> So if you are in one room, your wife is in another, you use some sort of
> mental telepathy to let her know to pick up the other phone, should the
> call be for her? <g>

Nope- with four kids (one daughter) and a wife, I never have to worry about
the phone ringing for very long (and seem to be much slower to react to the
sound than everyone else), and it is rarely for me.

>
> What I meant was that (a) caller is placed on hold, (b) transfer mode is
> used to direct a specific handset to ring, (c) handset that answered the
> call is put down as the other handset is now ringing (but no other).
> Should the other handset not pickup, the call bounces back to the
> original handset that took the call. The old way was, "IT'S FOR YOU,
> PICK IT UP!!!"
>
> I can get a similar option from my Telco, for a fee. But of course that
> would be useless since all the phones I'm talking about utilize the same
> RJ-11 jack (that the base station is plugged into).
>
>
> > , room monitor mode (if my wife is in the other room I
> >> can activate that mode to talk with her--and she doesn't even have to
> >> touch her handset, or even be right next to it).
> >
> > No need for that here.
> >
>
> That doesn't mean it didn't cost money to implement. I have no need for
> half the features on my cell phone.

True, but all it does is go into a muted walkie- talkie mode.

>
>
> > My original point was that
> > the very limited technology in your cordless phones (no exclusive
> > licensed technology, very limited functionality)
>
> My original point was that a comparison to a cordless phone is closer
> than comparing a cell phone to an MP3 player. And I disagree with the
> point about limited functionality. As far as exclusive licensed
> technology, I'd need to know exactly how much Qualcomm is paid per
> handset. I suspect it doesn't add much (prolly costs more for the
> backend infrastructure, which should not affect handset cost). Even
> el-cheapo DVD players included licenses technology, yet they manage to
> retail for under $50.

With Qualcomm, its not only the technology licensing- they make most of the
processors as well.

>
>
> > means that to post
> > that you having three of them that you paid $130 for does not make
> > any kind of argument that cellular technology can be just as cheap.
>
> In the absence of a true competitive market, there is no way to prove
> how inexpensive handsets can be here in the U.S. But I did use an
> analogy that should make you wonder just how much it costs--or perhaps
> would cost--to make these little devices.
>
> One final note: while the cordless phones I have now cost less and have
> more features than the two-year-old models they replaced, they also
> *work better* as phones. While my Sanyo 8200 has more features than the
> 8100 is replaced, it cost more and does not work better as a phone. In
> fact I'm thinking of Ebaying that 8200 and going back to the 8100 (till
> I decide on a phone that is a true upgrade). YMMV
>

I guess my expectations are lower, knowing the factors in play. My landline
phone better damn well have crystal clear sound, as it is hardwired into the
system. My cell is a different story- as long as it allows me to make a
call, be understood and understand the other party, I'm good with it. To
expect the same level of quality and service as a hardwired network is a
little naive to me. I always look at the cable vs. satellite TV comparison
(I've had both). The hardwired system rarely shows any sign of signal
degradation, and when it does it is usually an easy fix. Satellite, on the
other hand, operates optimally only under certain conditions. Pixellation
can frequently occur and the chances of getting a signal at all during a
storm is less than a 50-50 proposition. My point- the hardwired system is
almost always the most reliable, but may not be the most cost-effective or
convenient. I think a lot of people forget this when they start comparing
the call quality between the two systems (although I recognize that this is
not your point here).


Thanks, Mike- nice to have a civilized conversation in here for a change.

SS wrote:
> "Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
<snip>
>>
>> One final note: while the cordless phones I have now cost less and
>> have more features than the two-year-old models they replaced, they
>> also *work better* as phones. While my Sanyo 8200 has more features
>> than the 8100 is replaced, it cost more and does not work better as
>> a phone. In fact I'm thinking of Ebaying that 8200 and going back to
>> the 8100 (till
>> I decide on a phone that is a true upgrade). YMMV
>>
>
> I guess my expectations are lower, knowing the factors in play. My
> landline phone better damn well have crystal clear sound, as it is
> hardwired into the system. My cell is a different story- as long as
> it allows me to make a call, be understood and understand the other
> party, I'm good with it. To expect the same level of quality and
> service as a hardwired network is a little naive to me.

For the record I think you misunderstood--or I worded incorrectly--my
final note. What I was trying to convey was that my new cordless phone
cost less, has more features, and sounds better than the model it
replaced. My new cell phone cost more, has more features, and sounds
worse than the model it replaced (same SPCS system). I was basically
taking a shot at the Sanyo 8200. I did not mean to imply I expected the
same sound quality between POTS and cellular. That would indeed be a
little naive to me too. <g>


>
> Thanks, Mike- nice to have a civilized conversation in here for a
> change.

Roger that, SS.


--
Mike

Floyd I Johnson wrote:
>> It compares well. I purchased *three* phones, and a base-station for
>> that price (I guess you could say four phones, if I you include the
>> base-station).
>
> OK, I'm sold. What is the Brand and model of this new cordless phone
> system. I want new ones?

I don't have the model number handy, but it's a Uniden that I purchased
from a Staples store (not online). I don't remember if the original
price was reduced or not, but there was a $30 rebate (received). They
also offered a free third handset (normally $50 or so). Figuring I
wouldn't likely find a better price online I went for it (my Amex card
got me another 2% off).

It's the best-sounding cordless phone I've ever owned (YMMV). And at 5.8
GHz, my WiFi network is no longer fighting with the phone system.

The irony is that I'm thinking of dropping landline service altogether.
OTOH, it doesn't cost me a whole lot for the line anymore (about the
only add-on is caller ID, and I've removed LD completely) and my wife
seems to prefer using it instead of her cell (probably because she has a
Sanyo 8200 too). Still, I would love to be able to "cut the cord."


--
Mike

C M wrote:

> I asked the customer service what is the difference between this and if
> I sign up as a new customer using my wife's name for the family plan. He
> admitted that the only difference would be we would get our rebates on
> the 2 phones instantly as opposed to mail-in.
>
> They call this a retention plan???? This is a big joke cos this is
> exactly the same if you were to sign up today with SprintPCS.
> $80 for the 3 lines sharing 800 minutes and $5 extra if you want the
> Free N&Wkends to start at 7pm.

My contract was up last month and I wanted to add a fourth phone to my
$110 F&CA 2000 minute plan (+2nd phone free +$20 for third phone). All
have free unlimted Vision, free unlimited messaging and no roaming. I
was offered the same thing that you were. The *NEW* plan would have
cost me about $20 more a month for my existing 3 phone plan and $35 more
if I added a forth line. I asked what was in it for me by signing a new
2 year contract, the answer was just like yours, I could get a rebate on
phones. Well, I could do that now from the 18 month option that I have
not exercised yet. I asked if I could just simply add a 4th phone to my
existing plan and was told I could not. I politely ended the call and
went to a Sprint store. I was able to add a 4th line to my existing
plan, got a $49 8200 with no rebate involved and I only pay $25 more a
month ($20 for the additional add on phone +5 for Vision). I'm happy
with that. Of course all phones on my plan are have unlimited Vision
for free but they are charging $5 for the forth phone. Oh well. I have
one 2 year contract on the add a phone and nothing else on the other
lines and a far better deal then what I was offered in retention by
sticking with my old plan. My Sanyo 4900's are a little dated but not
being in a contract for the other three phones is an added bonus.