AT&T/Cingular Customers Call Free to AT&T Landline Customers

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:39:38 UTC, "jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote:

> AT&T announced that they will expand the ability of their wireless customers
> to make free calls. In addition to getting free m2m, wireless customers
> will be able to call AT&T landlines without incurring usage fees or using
> their wireless minutes.
>
> AT&T has 100 million landlines.
>
> Good marketing strategy.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/bu...=1&oref=slogin
>
>

Read the article, and I see it doesn't apply to me.

I don't even get free M2M on my Cingular plan, and my landline ATT
service is about as low as I can go with it. Under $19/month for
local/long distance (after taxes added)

I don't think it cost effective to add $60 or so to my phone bills to
get the free calls to landline.


--

---

› See More: AT&T/Cingular Customers Call Free to AT&T Landline Customers

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:43:30 UTC, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

> $25 is more than what most people spend for their land line and long
> distance combined. Remember, a great deal of long distance is now done
> on off-peak or mobile to mobile cell phone minutes. Not free, but
> included at no extra cost.
>

Actually, I would expect that the average is noticably higher. I pay
about $19/month, but I have the special "low usage" plan for
$7.75/month + taxes, and the $2.50/month long distance plan. Once you
add a few features, like caller ID and the normal phone plan, you are
over $30/month. (I have ATT).

Now, my ATT bill is considerably higher, but that is because I also
have DSL and Dish TV on it.

--

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:22:22 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>jeremy wrote:
>>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>>
>>>> Agreed. Vonage got in the game early, and seems to think their
>>>> continuous advertising will convince people it's a good deal. Again,
>>>> it's their reliance on ignorance- people think $25 is a good deal vs.
>>>> their landline provider, and it probably is, but competing VoIPs- even
>>>> the mainstream ones like Sunrocket, offer better rates.
>>
>> The fact remains that Vonage is operating in the red, so it would be
>> difficult for them to justify a rate reduction.
>
>That's not the way pricing works. You set your prices to be competitive,
>it doesn't matter whether you're in the black or the red. You can't
>raise prices to raise revenue, as you'll lose customers. Sometimes
>lowering prices increases revenue as volume goes up.

What a quaint notion of market pricing. In fact companies have
considerable discretion is setting market prices since "competitive" is
a very complex function of real and perceived value.

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

At 27 Jan 2007 06:16:26 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> What a quaint notion of market pricing. In fact companies have
> considerable discretion is setting market prices since "competitive" is
> a very complex function of real and perceived value.

Yet despite that "complex function", Verizon, Cingular, and Sprint are in
complete lockstep in their pricing right now. (450 min. for $39.99, etc.)

Apparently the complex functions of three different companies spit out
exactly the same results.

Kevin K wrote:

> I don't think it cost effective to add $60 or so to my phone bills to
> get the free calls to landline.

It doesn't apply to 99.99% of residential customers. The main reason for
this program is to try to sell more residential customers on buying
high-cost long distance service from AT&T. AT&T has been decimated in
the residential long distance market. A lot of businesses still use
them, because of their international capabilities for conference calls.

There are still a lot of people that are very naive about long distance
options. My mom was telling me about her friend that was spending
13¢/minute on AT&T to call her son that had moved to Israel, plus a
monthly fee. I hooked her up with TalkLoop which is less than 3¢/minute,
1/5 the cost.

Kevin K wrote:

> Actually, I would expect that the average is noticably higher. I pay
> about $19/month, but I have the special "low usage" plan for
> $7.75/month + taxes, and the $2.50/month long distance plan. Once you
> add a few features, like caller ID and the normal phone plan, you are
> over $30/month. (I have ATT).

I know that in California, more than 50% of residential customers have
complete Caller-ID Blocking. So Caller-ID is of very limited value, and
is not popular. The other add-on features are also not selling well
anymore either. Call-Waiting is less popular because most people have
cell phones so they have a way to be reached when their line is busy.
I'd say that most people have land line bills of well under $25. Long
distance varies widely, but the people that do a lot of long distance
have figured out how to cut the cost with calling cards, where you can
be as low as 2¢/minute.

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 07:21:52 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Kevin K wrote:
>
>> Actually, I would expect that the average is noticably higher. I pay
>> about $19/month, but I have the special "low usage" plan for
>> $7.75/month + taxes, and the $2.50/month long distance plan. Once you
>> add a few features, like caller ID and the normal phone plan, you are
>> over $30/month. (I have ATT).
>
>I know that in California, more than 50% of residential customers have
>complete Caller-ID Blocking. So Caller-ID is of very limited value, and
>is not popular. The other add-on features are also not selling well
>anymore either. Call-Waiting is less popular because most people have
>cell phones so they have a way to be reached when their line is busy.
>I'd say that most people have land line bills of well under $25. ...

Wrong again: "AT&T, the state's dominant phone carrier, said the
average monthly bill in California was $37.71, down 28% from five years
ago." [source: TURN]

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

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 07:15:51 -0700, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:

>At 27 Jan 2007 06:16:26 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> What a quaint notion of market pricing. In fact companies have
>> considerable discretion is setting market prices since "competitive" is
>> a very complex function of real and perceived value.
>
>Yet despite that "complex function", Verizon, Cingular, and Sprint are in
>complete lockstep in their pricing right now.

Not terribly imaginative, but not terribly surprising either, since the
real price is a more complex function of features (e.g., Rollover) and
packages (e.g., messaging), which is part of why different carriers have
such different ARPUs.

>(450 min. for $39.99, etc.)

I get 1,000 Anytime minutes with Rollover for that price.

>Apparently the complex functions of three different companies spit out
>exactly the same results.

Not when the whole picture is taken into account.

Given how much variation there is in consumer pricing of essentially the
same goods, as even a cursory pricing trip through a supermarket
demonstrates, he made a patently silly claim that displays fundamental
ignorance of the consumer market.

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

At 27 Jan 2007 18:17:49 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> >Apparently the complex functions of three different companies spit out
> >exactly the same results.
>
> Not when the whole picture is taken into account.

It's all marketing. "the network," "rollover," "7pm nights," etc. are
nebulous differentiators that salesdroids can use to explain to their
potential victims why their 450 minutes are better than the other guy's.
But obviously none of them want to chance having the low number in a
brochure to have to overcome with "rollover" or "7pm" like they used to.

> Given how much variation there is in consumer pricing of essentially the
> same goods, as even a cursory pricing trip through a supermarket
> demonstrates, he made a patently silly claim that displays fundamental
> ignorance of the consumer market.
>

Or, perhaps, he simply made a fairly accurate, although simplified,
comment appropriate to the forum. It was usenet post, not an article or
dissertation, and the underlying message was fundamentally correct-
market forces determine a single company's pricing in a competitive
market to a far greater degree than the cost of production.

IIRC, this discussion started because someone posted a comment that
Cingular's rebranding to AT&T would increase the rates Cingular users
will pay. In that context, SMS' comment was dead on.

You're correct in your point that marketing and setting price points is a
complex business. Yet the current similarity in minutes/dollar/month
among the top three carriers seems to indicate that the carriers AREN'T
effectively communicating their nuances to consumers, and have elected to
insure that they don't "look stingy" in terms of minutes offered at a
particular price point.

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> At 27 Jan 2007 06:16:26 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
> Yet despite that "complex function", Verizon, Cingular, and Sprint are in
> complete lockstep in their pricing right now. (450 min. for $39.99, etc.)
>
> Apparently the complex functions of three different companies spit out
> exactly the same results.
>
and it will be even more so as the competition keeps going away, from 6
carriers to 4 down to eventually 2.
And then we'll really not be competitive, not that any of them are now. All
the ext messaging fee have gone up, soon it will be T-mobile's turn, though
they already took away free incoming messages.

AL

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 11:56:27 -0700, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:

>At 27 Jan 2007 18:17:49 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> >Apparently the complex functions of three different companies spit out
>> >exactly the same results.
>>
>> Not when the whole picture is taken into account.
>
>It's all marketing. "the network," "rollover," "7pm nights," etc. are
>nebulous differentiators that salesdroids can use to explain to their
>potential victims why their 450 minutes are better than the other guy's.

My own take is that some of these are substantial differences. For
example, my own usage is so uneven month-to-month that Rollover is a
huge benefit.

>But obviously none of them want to chance having the low number in a
>brochure to have to overcome with "rollover" or "7pm" like they used to.

Smart shoppers know you have to look at the whole package.

>> Given how much variation there is in consumer pricing of essentially the
>> same goods, as even a cursory pricing trip through a supermarket
>> demonstrates, he made a patently silly claim that displays fundamental
>> ignorance of the consumer market.
>
>Or, perhaps, he simply made a fairly accurate, although simplified,
>comment appropriate to the forum. It was usenet post, not an article or
>dissertation, and the underlying message was fundamentally correct-
>market forces determine a single company's pricing in a competitive
>market to a far greater degree than the cost of production.

Modern economists disagree. But I don't want to get into a long
pointless debate, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

>IIRC, this discussion started because someone posted a comment that
>Cingular's rebranding to AT&T would increase the rates Cingular users
>will pay. In that context, SMS' comment was dead on.

Again, I disagree. On balance, I think it will result in savings to
many users, particularly those that take advantage of bundling and
promotions.

>You're correct in your point that marketing and setting price points is a
>complex business. Yet the current similarity in minutes/dollar/month
>among the top three carriers seems to indicate that the carriers AREN'T
>effectively communicating their nuances to consumers, and have elected to
>insure that they don't "look stingy" in terms of minutes offered at a
>particular price point.

I see that as an overly simplistic analysis (that contradicts the claim
about increased rates) -- while there is very intense toe-to-toe price
competition, there's also lots of effective price competition on
features, packages, bundling, and promotions. Things like Rollover do
matter, even though there's not an obvious price.

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

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 15:37:13 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >(450 min. for $39.99, etc.)
>>
>> I get 1,000 Anytime minutes with Rollover for that price.
>
>Right, which they offered at one time. They don't offer that anymore.
>
>They don't even offer the 450 minutes anymore--but I got 450 minutes
>with Rollover on a company discount.
>
>We can all talk about what Cingular used to offer, but John--try keeping
>current, would you?

It is current for those of us that have it, and it illustrates the
importance of keeping current on promotions, and locking in those
promotions. Good deals come and go -- you can't just look at one point
in time.

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

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 07:15:51 -0700, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:

>At 27 Jan 2007 06:16:26 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> What a quaint notion of market pricing. In fact companies have
>> considerable discretion is setting market prices since "competitive" is
>> a very complex function of real and perceived value.
>
>Yet despite that "complex function", Verizon, Cingular, and Sprint are in
>complete lockstep in their pricing right now. (450 min. for $39.99, etc.)
>
>Apparently the complex functions of three different companies spit out
>exactly the same results.

Exactly?
T-Mobile offers 600 minutes for that price.
MetroPCS is unlimited for that price.
Prepaid plans are all over the place.
It's not so simple even when features and packages are ignored.

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

At 27 Jan 2007 23:10:19 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> >Apparently the complex functions of three different companies spit out
> >exactly the same results.
>
> Exactly?

Yes- I mentioned the "three largest carriers" and then also by name-
Verizon, Cingular and Sprint.

> T-Mobile offers 600 minutes for that price.

True. Although, in fairness, they are not one of the three largest
carriers, nor are they named either "Verizon," "Cingular" or "Sprint."

FWIW, I'm a happy T-Mo customer. I accept inferior nationwide coverage
to "the big three" in return for much lower voice and data pricing.

If we were discussing that McDonald's, Burger King and Wendy's were all
selling Happy Meals for the same price, I doubt the lower price of meals
at Carl's Jr. would have much of an effect on their marketing plans!

T-Mo is essentially in a different category due to lesser nationwide
coverage, and half the customers of the big three (making it harder to
pitch "free in-network calling" as a perk.)

> MetroPCS is unlimited for that price.

Correct. See definition of "three largest carriers" and even a list of
their names repeated above. (Boy, we've moved from Carl's Jr. to "Joe's
Hamburger Stand" now!)


> Prepaid plans are all over the place.

> It's not so simple even when features and packages are ignored.

Agreed. What this says to me, mostly, is that T-Mobile still, despite
the best efforts of Catherine Zeta-Jones, and Jamie Lee Curtis before
her, has not yet established themselves as a major player in people's
minds, since they compete by "giving away" their service as compared to
the major nationwide carriers. Personally I'm content for it to stay
that way. If T-Mo had the market share and network of the big boys,
they'd charge what the big boys charge as well.

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:51:51 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >We can all talk about what Cingular used to offer, but John--try keeping
>> >current, would you?
>>
>> It is current for those of us that have it,
>
>For those who got it when it was available.

True.

>It is NOT current for anyone who wants to buy TODAY.

True again. Other things are available TODAY that weren't available
back then. Still other things will become available TOMORROW that
aren't available today. That's how it works.

>Stay with me here, John. Stay with me here. I know it's complicated,
>but you can do it.

I freely admit that trying to follow your childish logic is too
complicated for me, so you'll have to rant on without me. Have a nice
day.

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