How many users actually benefit from $99 unlimited?

At 22 Feb 2008 11:24:41 -0500 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> 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.


I don't think carriers "want" to move people to prepaid- just the opposite
in fact. Prepaid users tend to have lower ARPU and higher churn. Of the
big 4, only T-Mo seems to actively court prepaid users, as opposed to
tolerate them with punitive rates and restricted coverage (AT&T and Verizon)
or even disallow them (Sprint has no prepaid plan at all- they only do
prepaid through MVNOs like Virgin and Boost.)

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

I doubt it- it'll just be a forced price increase disguised as "greater
value." The $19.99 monthly plans disappeared years ago, most carriers
dropped their $29.99 plans in the last year or two, and I expect the $39.99
plans are next to go. Entry level for cellular will quietly become $49.99,
with lots of extra minutes so it'll seem more palatable.

Like I said in a prior post, don't be surprised if some carrier will launch
a new "simplified pricing" model soon (6 months to a year) with only two
base plans- a fairly large minute bucket for $50 (like 1000 plus M2M and
N&W) and "unlimited" for $100. Then there will be bundled plans like $80
for the $50 plan with x# thousand texts/MMS x# MB of mobile web/TV/virtual
kitchen sink, etc. and $150 for unlimited minutes/messaging/video/web etc.

At least the brochures will be easier to read! ;-)

---

› See More: How many users actually benefit from $99 unlimited?

SMS wrote:
> Ben Skversky wrote:
>> Great post. You are 1000% correct. I don't even need the 1000
>> minutes I get from T-mobile, but I'm only paying $39.99 & that
>> includes free nights & weekends.
>
> 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.

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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.)
>
>

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.

> 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.

Depends on your needs. Comcast just gave me TV, Internet and Telephone for
$99/mo on a 2 year contract. Although I only need/want the one included
digital box, the other 8 TV's get, and will continue to get after analog
shuts down, channels 1-78 with no box at all. Another $29/mo will get me a
package of services including HBO and others.

At 23 Feb 2008 10:42:44 -0800 SMS wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:

> 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.


Are you sure SpeakOut still roams on T-Mo in your area? I think the
network transition is over (or darn near.) The network IDs were recently
changed, IIRC.


Can't you just do a network search and see who comes up? Or does Cingular
lock that menu out?

(Although last year when I was in the Bay Area a network search on my T-Mo
phone and SIM showed "Cingular" and "Cingular") ;-)

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2008-02-23, bruceR <[email protected]> wrote:

> Depends on your needs. Comcast just gave me TV, Internet and Telephone for
> $99/mo on a 2 year contract. Although I only need/want the one included
> digital box, the other 8 TV's get, and will continue to get after analog
> shuts down, channels 1-78 with no box at all. Another $29/mo will get me a
> package of services including HBO and others.

Plus, satellite requires line-of-sight to the "bird"... and many people
don't have that. For example, satellite would never have worked at the
last place I lived in Ohio... trees to the southwest pretty much guaranteed
that...


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

>> 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.
>
>

This feature is included on all Sprint "digital only" phones that have been
released in the past several years.
>

> 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.

You are very uninformed and are probably operating from out-of-date facts or
are simply repeating something that you read or something that one of your
buddies said while in a bar. Sprint coverage in Southern California is as
good or better than Verizon. Sprint will also allow you to force your
digital Sprint Phone to Roaming Only mode anytime that you desire. This
gives you the best of Verizon and Sprint together anytime that you want to
use this capability. Therefore, Sprint is better than Verizon because it is
the only cell phone service that offers this option. I have the best of
Verizon and Sprint in one phone on a low cost plan.