Unlimited texting

At 23 Mar 2007 21:31:40 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> Mobile to mobile is commonly taken to be voice calling. It's a
> redundant term for messaging.

True, yet it's Cingular's own term for it (see your own posted "tinypic"
for evidence) so why shouldn't we refer to it as such?
>
> > 2.. You also indicated that Cingular has unlimited text but failed
to
> >mention it was not nationally. Apparently it's only available in
certain
> >markets.
>
> Apparently? Are you guessing, or do you have any actual evidence?

Actually he was giving you the benefit of the doubt, since YOU claimed
Cingular has unlimited texting for $10, but posted a screencap showing
only unlimited M2M texting for $10.

---

› See More: Unlimited texting

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 23 Mar 2007 15:19:16 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> Depends on the area and/or your rate plan. What I wrote was correct,
>> notwithstanding other offers. See
>> <http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=33erdk4>, captured this morning.
>
> Again, the screencap you posted clearly states "Unlimited Texting
> starting at $9.99 TO OVER 60 MILLION CINGULAR CUSTOMERS"
>
> It's unlimited to other Cingular phones only. It's not
> "unlimited texting" anymore than unlimited M2M is "unlimited calling."
>
> AFAIK, Cingular does not currently offer a true unlimited texting plan,
> at least according to their website.

Nor does Verizon. Sprint and T-Mobile do offer such plans. Practically
speaking, Verizon's 5000 out-of-network/unlimited in-network for $20,
and AT&T's 3000/unlimited for $25 is as good as unlimited for most people.

At 23 Mar 2007 20:49:19 -0700 SMS wrote:

> Nor does Verizon. Sprint and T-Mobile do offer such plans. Practically
> speaking, Verizon's 5000 out-of-network/unlimited in-network for $20,
> and AT&T's 3000/unlimited for $25 is as good as unlimited for most
> people.

Frankly, for me, the 50 texts/month I used to get for free with T-Mo up
until three years ago were as good as unlimited for me! ;-)

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 23 Mar 2007 20:49:19 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>> Nor does Verizon. Sprint and T-Mobile do offer such plans. Practically
>> speaking, Verizon's 5000 out-of-network/unlimited in-network for $20,
>> and AT&T's 3000/unlimited for $25 is as good as unlimited for most
>> people.
>
> Frankly, for me, the 50 texts/month I used to get for free with T-Mo up
> until three years ago were as good as unlimited for me! ;-)

I agree. When text messages were really cheap for pay-as-you-go I'd use
maybe 20-30 month, mainly for flight updates from airlines. I simply
switched to receiving a call from the airline instead. It works better
because when I'm roaming off of Verizon the text message delivery is
spotty. I used to get my text messages about the flight after I landed
at SFO.

I was getting so many junk text messages that I had Verizon disable text
messaging completely. They went from getting $1-3 per month in extra
revenue from me, to getting $0, but I guess that they figured that into
their calculations when they decided to push people to sign up for text
messaging plans by raising the prices of pay-as-you-go.

I'd love to know who needs 5000 text messages per month, other than
teenagers sending sweet nothings to their boyfriends/girlfriends.

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 23:29:23 -0600, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:

>At 23 Mar 2007 20:49:19 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>> Nor does Verizon. Sprint and T-Mobile do offer such plans. Practically
>> speaking, Verizon's 5000 out-of-network/unlimited in-network for $20,
>> and AT&T's 3000/unlimited for $25 is as good as unlimited for most
>> people.

True unlimited text messaging for $10/month in at least some cases:
* Sprint
<http://www1.sprintpcs.com/dir.jsp?landing=multipleBundleZipCodeLandingPage4>
* Verizon Wireless
<http://getitnow.vzwshop.com/index.aspx?id=messaging_pixflix> now offer

True unlimited text messaging in this area (San Francisco Bay Area) for
only $3/month:
* Metro PCS <http://metropcs.com/plans.php>

Also, Sprint just introduced "All-You-Can-Talk" (unlimited voice, text
messaging, and data) here in San Francisco for $120/month. (Mobile
Broadband is an additional $30/month.)

>Frankly, for me, the 50 texts/month I used to get for free with T-Mo up
>until three years ago were as good as unlimited for me! ;-)

Likewise -- my old MEdia Works package includes 1500 text messages, way
more than I've ever needed.

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

At 24 Mar 2007 02:16:25 -0700 SMS wrote:

> I agree. When text messages were really cheap for pay-as-you-go I'd
> use maybe 20-30 month, mainly for flight updates from airlines. I
> simply switched to receiving a call from the airline instead.

I also used SMS for notifications when texting was cheap. Since I carry
a WinMobile phone with a data plan and use Mail2Web's free push e-mail
service I've switched to push for those types of notifications. They are
virtually as fast and as reliable as SMS, but with no incremental cost to
me.

> I'd love to know who needs 5000 text messages per month, other than
> teenagers sending sweet nothings to their boyfriends/girlfriends.

It's also the 21st century equivalent of passing notes behind the
teacher's back in class!

At 24 Mar 2007 16:52:51 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> Jeez, Todd, do you EVER bother to be polite?

Always. To those who are polite in turn. While I find your arrogant
posts amusing as literature/entertainment, you are frequently rude and
obnoxious to anyone you dares question your statements. I have never
seen you admit a mistake without a qualification to place the blame
elsewhere. Even now, sure, you've admitted you erred, but only due to
Cingular's "misleading" advertising. That screencap is not "misleading"
if you acually READ it. Yet you gleefully took the time to link it
through a tinypic URL and post it three times as "evidence" that you
were right and everyone else in the thread, who posted the correct
information, was wrong.

Besides, you and I have gone around on this exact same issue before (you
posting irrelevant URLs as "proof" of your position.)

> p.s. Feel free to clarify my posts if you must, but skip the childish
> discourtesy -- it just pollutes the newsgroup and makes you look bad.

Ironically I was attempting to post in your style as a weak attempt at
humor. I'll try again below:

Rubbish.

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:58:38 -0600, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:

>At 24 Mar 2007 16:52:51 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> Jeez, Todd, do you EVER bother to be polite?
>
>Always. To those who are polite in turn. While I find your arrogant
>posts amusing as literature/entertainment, you are frequently rude and
>obnoxious to anyone you dares question your statements. I have never
>seen you admit a mistake without a qualification to place the blame
>elsewhere. Even now, sure, you've admitted you erred, but only due to
>Cingular's "misleading" advertising. That screencap is not "misleading"
>if you acually READ it. Yet you gleefully took the time to link it
>through a tinypic URL and post it three times as "evidence" that you
>were right and everyone else in the thread, who posted the correct
>information, was wrong.

We'll just have to disagree.

>Besides, you and I have gone around on this exact same issue before (you
>posting irrelevant URLs as "proof" of your position.)

Yep, just another pointless rotation of the broken record.

>> p.s. Feel free to clarify my posts if you must, but skip the childish
>> discourtesy -- it just pollutes the newsgroup and makes you look bad.
>
>Ironically I was attempting to post in your style as a weak attempt at
>humor. I'll try again below:
>
>Rubbish.

Grow up and stop being so hypocritical. Polluting the newsgroup with
inappropriate ad hominems and related off-topic meta discussions serves
no useful public purpose. Do you crave attention so much? Or do you
just feel that superior?

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

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 08:41:03 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>If you wanted to send 5000 out of network text messages per month, it
>would cost you $10 on Sprint, $15 on T-Mobile, $20 on Verizon, and $225
>on Cingular.

Never miss a chance to bash Cingular, even when it takes this kind of
extreme case? Whatever. You're wrong (yet again). The actual cost
would be $80, not $225. Hint: Messaging Extreme - 3000 Messages

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

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 08:41:03 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>If you wanted to send 5000 out of network text messages per month, it
>>would cost you $10 on Sprint, $15 on T-Mobile, $20 on Verizon, and $225
>>on Cingular.
>
> Never miss a chance to bash Cingular, even when it takes this kind of
> extreme case? Whatever. You're wrong (yet again). The actual cost
> would be $80, not $225. Hint: Messaging Extreme - 3000 Messages
>

Yeah- being 4-8 times the price of the competition is nothing to complain
about, is it?

Scott wrote:
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 08:41:03 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
>> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> If you wanted to send 5000 out of network text messages per month, it
>>> would cost you $10 on Sprint, $15 on T-Mobile, $20 on Verizon, and $225
>>> on Cingular.
>> Never miss a chance to bash Cingular, even when it takes this kind of
>> extreme case? Whatever. You're wrong (yet again). The actual cost
>> would be $80, not $225. Hint: Messaging Extreme - 3000 Messages
>>
>
> Yeah- being 4-8 times the price of the competition is nothing to complain
> about, is it?

It was my mistake, I didn't see that extra messages were only 3¢ rather
than 10¢ on the higher cost message plans. So it would be
$20+(2000*3¢)=$80, which is only 4x the cost, not 11x). Call the
newspapers, Navas got something correct!

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:55:14 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 08:41:03 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
>>> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>> If you wanted to send 5000 out of network text messages per month, it
>>>> would cost you $10 on Sprint, $15 on T-Mobile, $20 on Verizon, and $225
>>>> on Cingular.

>>> Never miss a chance to bash Cingular, even when it takes this kind of
>>> extreme case? Whatever. You're wrong (yet again). The actual cost
>>> would be $80, not $225. Hint: Messaging Extreme - 3000 Messages

>It was my mistake, I didn't see that extra messages were only 3¢ rather
>than 10¢ on the higher cost message plans. So it would be
>$20+(2000*3¢)=$80, which is only 4x the cost, not 11x). Call the
>newspapers, Navas got something correct!

Such a gracious concession.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgroup.com/>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

Scott wrote:

> Don't sweat it, Steve- a simple math error that even when corrected shows
> the Cingular pricing structure anything but market-dictated.
>
> The point is still well proven.

Well practically speaking, does anyone actually ever send 5000 messages
per month? That would be 165 messages per day. Maybe 3000 is just as
good as 5000.

I think that they want to prevent mass messaging, though that would be
done via e-mail to the cell phone number, not from a phone, and wouldn't
cost the sender anything.

> Well practically speaking, does anyone actually ever send 5000 messages
> per month? That would be 165 messages per day. Maybe 3000 is just as
> good as 5000.

I see you don't have High School and Jr. HS students in your family! :-)

"Michael Paris" <[email protected]> wrote in newseKdnUs6
[email protected]:

>
>> Well practically speaking, does anyone actually ever send 5000 messages
>> per month? That would be 165 messages per day. Maybe 3000 is just as
>> good as 5000.
>
> I see you don't have High School and Jr. HS students in your family! :-)
>

Yeah- I was thinking the same thing. I may have to replace my daughter's
phone about every six months at the rate she texts- the keyboard is only
good for a few hundred thousand keystrokes before it fries.