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!!!

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.

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>

[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>

[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>

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.