Over $300/month for PHONE service?!?

On 10/23/2011 11:15 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> http://forums.macresource.com/read.php?1,1249169
>
> If I read this right, he has a primary phone and four others? adding up
> to $305 PLUS garbage fees, that's an easy $325/month total.
>
> For ****ing PHONE service?????
>
> Who in his right mind spends THAT much money for something truly as
> inconsequential as this?

Many people. There is apparently no recession. Most people have no
concept of low monthly cost cellular phone service. Many people with no
pressing need for huge amounts of data spend $70-80/month in order to be
able to watch movies, play games, and stream music.

The question is how can you profit from people that spend money like
that? Are any of the stocks of the wireless carriers poised for a big
increase? Analysts don't like any of the carriers much these days.

When I give my presentation "Smart Phones, Dumb Prices" I get about 10%
of the people to move to Pageplus.

---

› See More: Over $300/month for PHONE service?!?

On 10/23/2011 12:57 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> Yep. Corporate America wants YOU to invest in a personal liability of
> $100 or more per month *just* to be considered employable.

No, they _expect_ you to keep up with technology and be able to use
productivity tools like contact management, calendaring, and e-mail, as
well as social and professional media apps.

People pay $80-100 per month often simply because they are unaware of
any alternatives.

On 23/10/11 12:20 PM, SMS wrote:
> On 10/23/2011 11:15 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> http://forums.macresource.com/read.php?1,1249169
>>
>> If I read this right, he has a primary phone and four others? adding up
>> to $305 PLUS garbage fees, that's an easy $325/month total.
>>
>> For ****ing PHONE service?????
>>
>> Who in his right mind spends THAT much money for something truly as
>> inconsequential as this?
>
> Many people. There is apparently no recession.

The recession doesn't affect those who are unaffected - by which I mean
if you and the rest of your family still have the same jobs you had
before the recession started, your personal income hasn't been affected,
and you can continue to afford the things you afforded before.

A few months after the market crashed in 2008 I was talking with someone
who manages a high end art gallery in SF. I asked how sales were doing
with the economic collapse. She said that the previous month's sales
were an all-time high for the gallery. Then she finished with "The rich
are still rich" - meaning that those who had a lot of money 3 months
earlier still had a lot of money and could buy art if it struck their
fancy. Similarly, they can also afford high cell phone bills. I know a
guy who is paying over $400/month for the cell phone bills for himself,
for 3 kids, and for a girlfriend. I suggested he tell the kids to get
jobs and pay their own bills (the youngest was 16 at that time) and he
proceeded to explain why each of them couldn't do that simple thing. Oh
well, it's his money he's burning. When he would gripe about his bills
I'd just tune him out - he made his choices to support their cell phone
addictions and "excuse" them from working to pay their own rent, own
insurance, own cell phone bills. Fortunately for all of them he's a
high paid tech worker who can (barely) afford all this largess.

jc

On 10/23/2011 12:32 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:

> Apparently that guy. Who are we to argue if he's happy with the
> perceived value he receives? That plan probably includes unlimited
> voice, texting, and 2GB data per phone, and with five of them runs about
> $60/month each. Not bad if the family is scattered (college kids, etc.)
> and these are their primary phones (e.g. that might be three kids with no
> landline expenses.)
>
> When it's coming our of *your* pocket, you get to worry about it!

I agree, but that said people do throw away a lot of money unnecessarily
simply because they are not aware of other options.

I've been visiting a load of colleges lately as my daughter is a senior
in high school. I have not been to a single campus, public or private,
that does not have campus-wide wi-fi, and often there is both a secured
network for students and a guest network for visitors. If living on
campus, a smart phone with a plan like offered by Pageplus is
ideal--enough data to use when there's no wi-fi, plus sufficient voice
minutes and texting, especially when you consider you can use Google
Voice to call or text for free over wi-fi. Of course the cost of
unlimited data is really lost in the noise of the $2000-3000/month cost
of tuition and room and board!

I think I've been pretty successful in getting my kids to understand two
things:

a) Use e-mail and the home phone when at home rather than the cell phone
for voice calls and for texting

b) use the laser printer when you're not printing in color.

BTW, for those looking for good deals on ink and toner check out
<http://www.monoprice.com>. Their remanufactured units are cheaper than
getting cartridges refilled at Costco.

On 10/23/2011 1:21 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> SMS<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Yep. Corporate America wants YOU to invest in a personal liability of
>>> $100 or more per month *just* to be considered employable.
>>
>> No, they _expect_ you to keep up with technology and be able to use
>> productivity tools like contact management, calendaring, and e-mail, as
>> well as social and professional media apps.
>
> Which is quite doable without incurring an ongoing $100/month liability
> for something that benefits THEM.

I agree. I do it for less than $30 a month. Sadly, fewer companies are
picking up the tab for employee's cell phone bills unless they are field
employees. But a lot still pay for the cost of broadband at home.

On 10/23/2011 2:44 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 23 Oct 2011 13:02:37 -0700 SMS wrote:
>> On 10/23/2011 12:57 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>
>>> Yep. Corporate America wants YOU to invest in a personal liability of
>>> $100 or more per month *just* to be considered employable.
>>
>> No, they _expect_ you to keep up with technology and be able to use
>> productivity tools like contact management, calendaring, and e-mail, as
>> well as social and professional media apps.
>>
>> People pay $80-100 per month often simply because they are unaware of
>> any alternatives.
>
>
> Agreed. For those unconcerned with the occasional odd stare or laughing
> behind their backs, I've detailed a number of times how to use Page Plus
> and a few specific old Verizon Samsung WinMobile phones (i600, i730, i830)
> from 2003-2005 to have excruciatingly slow but unlimited QNC data for
> $2.50/month, with email, social networking, web browsing, maps, etc.
>
> They'll even connect to corporate Exchange servers.
>
> I use an old Samsung i730 on PP as a rural backup for my T-Mo smartphone.
> They both use the same MS Live account via EAS (Exchange Activesync) to
> sync mail, contacts, and calendar with my PC so I can seamlessly switch
> between phones and have up to date data from either. A free Dropbox
> account keeps my files accessible from either device as well.
>
> I get some strange looks the very rare times I whip out the i730, which
> is silver, thick as a brick and twice as heavy, so I usually make a point
> to pull up the whip antenna (unnecessarily) to complete the retro effect.
>
> Other phones (including a few slightly newer models) will work with a
> little hacking, but the Samsungs I mentioned will work out-of-box, (and
> are the only smartphones that I'm aware of that will.)

What is annoying is when someone complains endlessly about the cost of
some monthly service and you tell them exactly how to cut that cost
significantly and they have a bunch of dumb excuses as to why they can't
do that.

I have a relative that constantly complains about the cost of digital
cable, broadband data, AT&T landline service, and cell phone service.
She uses very little cellular data per month, just occasional web
browsing and e-mail--no games, video streaming, or audio streaming. I
told her she could save $35/month by switching to Sonic.net (a
DSL/landline provider) for landline and DSL, $25/month by switching to
Dish Network from her cable TV provider, and $45/month by switching from
Verizon to Pageplus. That's $105/month savings with no need to change
her usage. She keeps saying she'll do these things. She never does.

What comes to mind is the quote by Mark Crispin, Inventor of the IMAP
e-Mail Protocol, "It's best not to argue with people who are determined
to lose. Once you've told them about a superior alternative, your
responsibility is fulfilled and you can allow them to lose in peace."

On 10/23/2011 2:15 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> http://forums.macresource.com/read.php?1,1249169
>
> If I read this right, he has a primary phone and four others? adding up
> to $305 PLUS garbage fees, that's an easy $325/month total.
>
> For ****ing PHONE service?????
>
> Who in his right mind spends THAT much money for something truly as
> inconsequential as this?

Someone with a wife and three children old enough to use a cell phone?
Whatever the reason, it must be worth it to him!

Does VZW offer quantity discounts?

SMS wrote on [Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:44:05 -0700]:
> On 10/23/2011 2:44 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 23 Oct 2011 13:02:37 -0700 SMS wrote:
> I have a relative that constantly complains about the cost of digital
> cable, broadband data, AT&T landline service, and cell phone service.
> She uses very little cellular data per month, just occasional web
> browsing and e-mail--no games, video streaming, or audio streaming. I

You keep espousing these three items as the only things that use data
They are farm from it, I do NONE of the three and always go over
1GB a month.
No nav, just email, web, facebook, twitter and google+
Some yelp too.

Application updates can be a killer too.

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 14:15:05 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>http://forums.macresource.com/read.php?1,1249169
>
>If I read this right, he has a primary phone and four others? adding up
>to $305 PLUS garbage fees, that's an easy $325/month total.
>
>For ****ing PHONE service?????
>
>Who in his right mind spends THAT much money for something truly as
>inconsequential as this?

Seriously, why does it matter to you? It's his money, he's free to
spend (waste) it as he pleases. None of us are in a position to judge
his actions. It's obviously not as inconsequential to him as it is to
you.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

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

> b) use the laser printer when you're not printing in color.

Your age is showing.

The laser printer *is* color.
===============================================

Some are, some aren't.
laser is a technology, just as ink-jet is.
Either one can be monochrome or color.

I happen to have a color laser that duplexes & a mono-laser that doesn't --
but it also scans & makes copies. I use them for different purposes.
bj

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote on [Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:59:19 -0400]:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "bj" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > b) use the laser printer when you're not printing in color.
>>
>> Your age is showing.
>>
>> The laser printer *is* color.
>> ===============================================
>>
>> Some are, some aren't.
>> laser is a technology, just as ink-jet is.
>> Either one can be monochrome or color.
>
> Absolutely, but in context he was referring to "the laser" as if it was
> exclusively monochrome.
>
> In fact, the day is here now when we've stopped distinguishing between
> color and monochrome laser printers and copiers in the business world.
> "The copier" *is* the printer, and it *is* color.

sure, however we have signs up all over the place saying to print in B&W
as colour copies cost 10 times more.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote on [Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:59:19 -0400]:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "bj" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > b) use the laser printer when you're not printing in color.
>>
>> Your age is showing.
>>
>> The laser printer *is* color.
>> ===============================================
>>
>> Some are, some aren't.
>> laser is a technology, just as ink-jet is.
>> Either one can be monochrome or color.
>
> Absolutely, but in context he was referring to "the laser" as if it was
> exclusively monochrome.
>
> In fact, the day is here now when we've stopped distinguishing between
> color and monochrome laser printers and copiers in the business world.
> "The copier" *is* the printer, and it *is* color.

sure, however we have signs up all over the place saying to print in B&W
as colour copies cost 10 times more.

On 10/25/2011 3:38 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, Justin<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> In fact, the day is here now when we've stopped distinguishing between
>>> color and monochrome laser printers and copiers in the business world.
>>> "The copier" *is* the printer, and it *is* color.
>>
>> sure, however we have signs up all over the place saying to print in B&W
>> as colour copies cost 10 times more.
>
> You can put the signs up, but the behavior comes from the top--and you
> know the boss is printing everything in color, even his email, because
> "it's too hard to have to change it every time".

Signs don't work.

First, each computer on the network needs the default printer set to the
monochrome printer.

Second, the printers on each machine need to be renamed so the user
doesn't just see a model number. I use "Expensive Color Printer" and
"Cheap Laser Printer," but for the sake of accuracy I suppose these
should be changed to "Expensive Color Inkjet Printer" and "Cheap
Monochrome Laser Printer."

Third, e-mails need to go out to employees periodically explicitly
requesting them to use the monochrome printer when color isn't
necessary, and reiterating the reason.

On 25 Oct 2011 in alt.cellular.verizon, sms88 wrote:

> On 10/25/2011 3:38 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>,
>> Justin<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> In fact, the day is here now when we've stopped distinguishing
>>>> between color and monochrome laser printers and copiers in the
>>>> business world. "The copier" *is* the printer, and it *is* color.
>>>
>>> sure, however we have signs up all over the place saying to print
>>> in B&W as colour copies cost 10 times more.
>>
>> You can put the signs up, but the behavior comes from the top--and
>> you know the boss is printing everything in color, even his email,
>> because "it's too hard to have to change it every time".
>
> Signs don't work.
>
> First, each computer on the network needs the default printer set to
> the monochrome printer.
>
> Second, the printers on each machine need to be renamed so the user
> doesn't just see a model number. I use "Expensive Color Printer" and
> "Cheap Laser Printer," but for the sake of accuracy I suppose these
> should be changed to "Expensive Color Inkjet Printer" and "Cheap
> Monochrome Laser Printer."
>
> Third, e-mails need to go out to employees periodically explicitly
> requesting them to use the monochrome printer when color isn't
> necessary, and reiterating the reason.

In a Windows Domain environment, each printer can be set up as a
resource, with independent permissions. So the monochrome printers can
be set up to be freely accessible, and the color printers so that a
user has to enter a userid and password to use them. Or only certain
users or groups have permission to use certain printers. In an extreme
case - say you have mono lasers for text output, color lasers for day
to day proofing use, and a really high-end printer of some sort for
final prints - you can even set up a billing system where users get
charged for using one of the printers.

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

Joe Makowiec wrote on [Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:50:44 +0000 (UTC)]:
> On 25 Oct 2011 in alt.cellular.verizon, sms88 wrote:
>
>> On 10/25/2011 3:38 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>> Justin<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In fact, the day is here now when we've stopped distinguishing
>>>>> between color and monochrome laser printers and copiers in the
>>>>> business world. "The copier" *is* the printer, and it *is* color.
>>>>
>>>> sure, however we have signs up all over the place saying to print
>>>> in B&W as colour copies cost 10 times more.
>>>
>>> You can put the signs up, but the behavior comes from the top--and
>>> you know the boss is printing everything in color, even his email,
>>> because "it's too hard to have to change it every time".
>>
>> Signs don't work.
>>
>> First, each computer on the network needs the default printer set to
>> the monochrome printer.
>>
>> Second, the printers on each machine need to be renamed so the user
>> doesn't just see a model number. I use "Expensive Color Printer" and
>> "Cheap Laser Printer," but for the sake of accuracy I suppose these
>> should be changed to "Expensive Color Inkjet Printer" and "Cheap
>> Monochrome Laser Printer."
>>
>> Third, e-mails need to go out to employees periodically explicitly
>> requesting them to use the monochrome printer when color isn't
>> necessary, and reiterating the reason.
>
> In a Windows Domain environment, each printer can be set up as a
> resource, with independent permissions. So the monochrome printers can
> be set up to be freely accessible, and the color printers so that a
> user has to enter a userid and password to use them. Or only certain
> users or groups have permission to use certain printers. In an extreme
> case - say you have mono lasers for text output, color lasers for day
> to day proofing use, and a really high-end printer of some sort for
> final prints - you can even set up a billing system where users get
> charged for using one of the printers.

And when it's a single printer that can do colour and B&W and he B&W
is still 1/10th of the cost to print?