Results 31 to 36 of 36
- 02-20-2006, 07:16 AM #31Chris SweeneyGuest
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!!!
- 02-20-2006, 08:01 AM #32SMSGuest
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.
- 02-20-2006, 12:21 PM #33jayGuest
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>
- 02-21-2006, 10:25 AM #34John NavasGuest
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>
- 02-21-2006, 10:27 AM #35John NavasGuest
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>
- 03-05-2006, 04:28 AM #36Guest
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
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.verizon
- Cingular
- Cingular
- T-Mobile
What are the best ways to retain employees of your company?
in Chit Chat