Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 36 of 36
  1. #31
    Chris Sweeney
    Guest

    Re: PISSED Off About Cingular Text Messaging Prices!!!

    Your friend with Sprint likely gets that because they are on the old if
    you have Vision for $15/M you can get unlimited TXT for $5 more.
    Verizon only offers unlimted TXT to other Verizon customers for the $5
    to non Verizon its only 50 per month. Verizon's TXT prices are the
    exact same as Cingulars and now Sprint currently charges $5 for 100, $8
    for 500 and $15 for unlmited.

    Me wrote:
    > Hi All.
    >
    > I don't know how you all feel, but I'm really pissed about Cingular
    > having TERRIBLE offers regarding text messaging!! WHY??? I have one
    > friend with Sprint who pays $5 per month for unlimited texting and
    > another with Verizon who pays the same. I pay $10 per line for only
    > 1000 text messages (which we know can easily be surpassed in one
    > month)! The next stupid offer Cingular has is $20 per line for only
    > 2500 text messages. They don't even offer unlimited texting which
    > they'd probably charge an arm and a leg for if they did have it!
    >
    > Does text messaging use some kind of resources that costs Cingular tons
    > of money?? Why do they BLEED people?
    >
    > I'm done ranting... Thanks for listening.
    >
    > Me
    >




    See More: PISSED Off About Cingular Text Messaging Prices!!!




  2. #32
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: PISSED Off About Cingular Text Messaging Prices!!!

    Me wrote:
    > Hi All.
    >
    > I don't know how you all feel, but I'm really pissed about Cingular
    > having TERRIBLE offers regarding text messaging!! WHY??? I have one
    > friend with Sprint who pays $5 per month for unlimited texting and
    > another with Verizon who pays the same. I pay $10 per line for only
    > 1000 text messages (which we know can easily be surpassed in one
    > month)! The next stupid offer Cingular has is $20 per line for only
    > 2500 text messages. They don't even offer unlimited texting which
    > they'd probably charge an arm and a leg for if they did have it!
    >
    > Does text messaging use some kind of resources that costs Cingular tons
    > of money?? Why do they BLEED people?


    Because some people don't care about the cost. Personally I can't
    imagine sending that many messages a month, but everyone's needs are
    different. I would not even pay $5 per month for messaging. In fact I
    had my carrier turn it off, because of the spam messages.



  3. #33
    jay
    Guest

    Re: PISSED Off About Cingular Text Messaging Prices!!!

    My message was actually intended for "Me," the original poster of the
    thread.


    eh, you respect what the aclu does?

    I have never heard anyone ever use the word Neocon in its correct meaning.



    "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <[email protected]> on Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:06:25
    > -0500, "jay" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >What is so evil about making a profit?

    >
    > Nothing.
    >
    > >If I were to guess you are the type of person that voted John Kerry in

    the
    > >last election.

    >
    > Yep. No way I'd vote for the idiot that's now President. ("Be careful

    what
    > you wish for!")
    >
    > >You are probably a card carrying member of the ACLU.

    >
    > No, but I respect what it does.
    >
    > >You
    > >are scared of global warming

    >
    > At least you got that right!
    >
    > >and you want Hillary's socialized health care.

    >
    > Nope. But I don't want Dubya's help-the-rish program either.
    >
    > >There are tons of communist countries that you can move to that may fit

    into
    > >your ideals.

    >
    > Not my ideals. I'm a real Conservative, not a Dubya NeoCon.
    >
    > >"Me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >news:[email protected]
    > >> It's not that I didn't check it out before I got text messaging for the
    > >> first time, it's that I was already locked into a contract and I needed
    > >> texting.
    > >>
    > >> It's not a "fair" price when you look at what other carriers are
    > >> charging. There's a difference between "giving away the store" and
    > >> "charging fair prices." And yes, it is greed. Capitalism at it's best!
    > >> Worshipping The Almighty Dollar! Sounds like you work for Cingular...
    > >> Hmmmm? LOL!

    >
    > --
    > Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
    > John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>






  4. #34
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: PISSED Off About Cingular Text Messaging Prices!!!

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <[email protected]> on Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:21:09
    -0500, "jay" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >My message was actually intended for "Me," the original poster of the
    >thread.
    >
    >eh, you respect what the aclu does?


    Yes.

    >I have never heard anyone ever use the word Neocon in its correct meaning.


    My meaning was consistent with the accepted definition:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)

    >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >>
    >> In <[email protected]> on Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:06:25
    >> -0500, "jay" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> >What is so evil about making a profit?

    >>
    >> Nothing.
    >>
    >> >If I were to guess you are the type of person that voted John Kerry in

    >the
    >> >last election.

    >>
    >> Yep. No way I'd vote for the idiot that's now President. ("Be careful

    >what
    >> you wish for!")
    >>
    >> >You are probably a card carrying member of the ACLU.

    >>
    >> No, but I respect what it does.
    >>
    >> >You
    >> >are scared of global warming

    >>
    >> At least you got that right!
    >>
    >> >and you want Hillary's socialized health care.

    >>
    >> Nope. But I don't want Dubya's help-the-rish program either.
    >>
    >> >There are tons of communist countries that you can move to that may fit

    >into
    >> >your ideals.

    >>
    >> Not my ideals. I'm a real Conservative, not a Dubya NeoCon.


    --
    Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
    John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>



  5. #35
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: PISSED Off About Cingular Text Messaging Prices!!!

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <[email protected]> on Mon, 20 Feb 2006 06:01:32
    -0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Because some people don't care about the cost. Personally I can't
    >imagine sending that many messages a month, but everyone's needs are
    >different. I would not even pay $5 per month for messaging. In fact I
    >had my carrier turn it off, because of the spam messages.


    I've only gotten a few spam messages, and they stopped after I reported them
    to the carrier.

    --
    Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
    John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>



  6. #36

    Re: The Other Side of the "Two-Year Term" Argument

    The problems with vonage aren't just service related but customer
    service related.... Read my experiences here:
    http://bitterplace.homeip.net:8080/m...rticle&sid=117



    Jeremy wrote:
    > "GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > > I consider 2-year contracts Cingular's fault. That is greediness. You
    > > find out the service isn't working well for you, then your stuck unless
    > > you want to pay the early termination fee. In this fast-paced world,
    > > it's hard to know what we will need even a year from now. If you
    > > aren't willing to sign the 2-year contract, then you have to pay
    > > exorbitant prices for the hardware.

    >
    > It is easy to characterize carriers as greedy when they ask users to sign
    > contracts, but that is an unbalanced view. Much as I've castigated Cingular
    > recently, there is another side to the contract issue, and it bears telling
    > and discussing.
    >
    > Let's start with a little bit of history. In 1971 I inquired of New Jersey
    > Bell how to obtain Mobile Telephone Service (that is, the ORIGINAL MTS, with
    > the big transceiver in the trunk of the car--cellular hadn't yet been
    > invented). They replied that there was a two-year waiting list, because
    > there were only a handful of frequencies allocated, and each frequency was
    > tied up whenever a single conversation was carried. The monthly service fee
    > was $225.00 JUST TO HAVE A PHONE NUMBER. (This was 1971 dollars!) I don't
    > recall what the "per-minute" or long distance charges were, but they had to
    > be at least a few dollars per minute.
    >
    > Enter cellular. My first bag phone, from Cellular One, had a monthly charge
    > several times higher than I pay now, and there were no free minutes, as I
    > recall. Roaming rates applied if my calls originated or terminated in even
    > the next county--$.99 per minute.
    >
    > When AT&T Wireless appeared on the scene, I began using an Ericsson LX-100
    > digital handset and received a huge roam-free calling area, relative to what
    > Cellular One gave me. I was paying about $100 per month.
    >
    > Later ATTWS offered free minutes and free N/W, with free long distance, at a
    > still cheaper price. I got three lines, at $29.99 apiece, and I signed a
    > one year term agreement. ATTWS had a base plan with NO free minutes and a
    > minimum monthly fee, just to cover the cost of reserving the number in the
    > customer's name, with a $.75 per minute charge. No contract. No free
    > phone. Hardly anybody bought it.
    >
    > Those customers that entered into a term agreement got freebies. They had a
    > $20/month plan with 40 anytime minutes (less than $.75 times 40). They had
    > the Digital One Rate plan at $29.99, with 250 minutes, free N/W, free
    > incoming text, and a subsidized phone.
    >
    > The deal was straightforward: the customer agreed to provide the carrier
    > with a minimum monthly income for a specific period of time, and the carrier
    > offered deep discounts off its base prices. Considering that the long
    > distance was free, I was able to drop AT&T Reach Out America on my home line
    > ($10.00 for the first 60 minutes, then $7.80 per hour thereafter) and I came
    > out ahead. In fact, my long distance savings more than paid for my wireless
    > service. Not bad, in exchange for a 12 month term.
    >
    > With number portability came two-year terms, but heavy night/weekend users
    > still get a deal that is not likely to be beaten from their landline
    > carrier. And cellular call quality is superior to VoIP services like
    > Vonage, where there are latency issues and breakup of sound (Fortune
    > Magazine recently did an article on Vonage, and revealed that 25% of their
    > customers leave each year, dissatisfied over the performance versus Vonage's
    > advertising claims. Vonage spends a fortune on advertising just to attract
    > replacements for those customers. It hasn't turned one cent in profit.
    > Clearly, this cannot go on.)
    >
    > The handsets themselves, if they were not subsidized, would cost upwards of
    > $200.00 apiece. Just look at the prices charged for walkie-talkies at Radio
    > Shack.
    >
    > The key to controlling costs is to avoid all those value-added features.
    > Make calls in the free periods. Don't treat text messaging like it is a
    > mobile version of Instant Messenger, because it's not. How many people
    > really need Internet access or television shows on their mobile phones?
    > And, if you must have those extra goodies, please don't moan and whine when
    > the bill comes.
    >
    > Where can one go and participate in a communications network that took years
    > to create, and billions of dollars to build, and more millions of dollars to
    > maintain--all for under $50 per month? Looking back at the prices that were
    > formerly charged, I'd opt for a term agreement anytime. All it takes to get
    > out of one is to pay the ETF--essentially paying the carrier back for the
    > retail price of the subsidized phone--and one is free to walk.
    >
    > As an alternative, there are pay-as-you-go plans that, even though they
    > offer much less than the term plans, still are much better than one would
    > have paid for cellular service as recently as a decade ago. But it is
    > inappropriate to compare the relative merits of such a plan to those offered
    > to serious customers that commit to a guaranteed revenue stream for the
    > carrier. The pay-as-you-go plans probably represent the least stable class
    > of customers for any carrier--the 20% of their customer base that causes 80%
    > of their revenue difficulties.
    >
    > It still amazes me that someone that is chargeoff all over town can get
    > wireless service at all. Seen from that perspective, wireless is a bargain.
    >
    > What I find offensive about Cingular in particular is their habit of
    > insisting upon a new two-year agreement at every opportunity, Posters have
    > complained that even slight changes to their service were conditioned upon
    > re-upping. I have the answer for that, too: leave Cingular like I did.
    > Vote with your feet.





  • Similar Threads




  • Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123