Phones Without Vision

I'm thinking about buying my daughter a new phone for Christmas. She
currently has the Samsung VI 660 that she received when we added her
new line. The phone has been knocked around quite a bit and definitely
shows it. Her current phone has vision services, but I'm tired of the
extra charges that are incurred from downloading ringers etc. I would
like to get her a decent phone without having to subscribe to the
vision services. BUT, she wants a camera phone. If I were to buy her
a camera phone wouldn't she have to have the vision service?

So, are there any regular phones out there that I don't need vision
for? My husband has the Nokia 3588i and I have an old Kyocera 2345, so
I might consider buying 3 new phones if I could find a good deal.

Thanks,
Sherry

---

› See More: Phones Without Vision

Getting a camera phone without vision means that she will need to
download pictures to the computer via cable when she gets home, then
email them as attachments to people.

No longer will she be able to instantly share photos with others (which
is a big part of having a camera phone).

It would almost make more sense to just buy her non-camera phone, and
then a digital camera to carry around with her.

You could get her one without a vision subscription, but (correct me if
I am wrong) ... if she attempts to use vision anyway, they will hit her
with a per-kilobyte charge instead of a flat fee which could really add
up.

I wouldn't get a vision phone without vision, as an inadvertant
keypress could incur me $100 of data charges if I hit a really gnarly
link on the web browser. I heard of one guy that got hit with a $2,000
charge because he forgot to add Vision to his phone. I think Sprint
negotiated with him, but still .... do you want to chance it?

My advice would be to get Vision with a vision phone, or get a phone
that absolutely cannot use Vision.

FWIW cried out

> Getting a camera phone without vision means that she will need to
> download pictures to the computer via cable when she gets home,
> then email them as attachments to people.
>
> No longer will she be able to instantly share photos with others
> (which is a big part of having a camera phone).
>
> It would almost make more sense to just buy her non-camera phone,
> and then a digital camera to carry around with her.
>
> You could get her one without a vision subscription, but (correct
> me if I am wrong) ... if she attempts to use vision anyway, they
> will hit her with a per-kilobyte charge instead of a flat fee
> which could really add up.
>
> I wouldn't get a vision phone without vision, as an inadvertant
> keypress could incur me $100 of data charges if I hit a really
> gnarly link on the web browser. I heard of one guy that got hit
> with a $2,000 charge because he forgot to add Vision to his phone.
> I think Sprint negotiated with him, but still .... do you want to
> chance it?
>
> My advice would be to get Vision with a vision phone, or get a
> phone that absolutely cannot use Vision.
>
>

The per kb rate is nominal, I am not sure exactly what it is, but
$100.00 is alot of data, especially $2000.00. If you occasionally just
download one ringtone, or check e-mail on the phone the charges will be
very nominal a couple of dollars at the most.

>The per kb rate is nominal, I am not sure exactly what it is, but
>$100.00 is alot of data, especially $2000.00.


Not on a PDA Phone.

In article <[email protected]>,
Rosco <[email protected]> wrote:

> The per kb rate is nominal, I am not sure exactly what it is, but
> $100.00 is alot of data, especially $2000.00. If you occasionally just
> download one ringtone, or check e-mail on the phone the charges will be
> very nominal a couple of dollars at the most.

I don't have the Vision service, but I've downloaded a couple of
ringtones - free, not purchased via Sprint - and the charge was nominal
each time. A dollar or so, IIRC.

Same with text messages. I don't sub to the text service ($5 a month),
but I've sent a couple of text messages just becuse it was handy to do
so, and was charged something like 5 or 10 cents each.

No biggy for the very casual user, but admittedly might get out of hand
if not watched.

[email protected] wrote in news:1133454935.088161.176650
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> I'm thinking about buying my daughter a new phone for Christmas. She
> currently has the Samsung VI 660 that she received when we added her
> new line. The phone has been knocked around quite a bit and definitely
> shows it. Her current phone has vision services, but I'm tired of the
> extra charges that are incurred from downloading ringers etc. I would
> like to get her a decent phone without having to subscribe to the
> vision services. BUT, she wants a camera phone. If I were to buy her
> a camera phone wouldn't she have to have the vision service?
>
> So, are there any regular phones out there that I don't need vision
> for? My husband has the Nokia 3588i and I have an old Kyocera 2345, so
> I might consider buying 3 new phones if I could find a good deal.
>
> Thanks,
> Sherry
>



My wife and I each have been using the Nokia 6016i for just over a year and
they have worked great. I also wanted a non-vision phone. I do not need a
camera, wireless web, etc. Just a phone. The phone has been solid with
great features and battery life. I also installed the CK-7W nokia hands
free car kits in both cars. It works great with this low end phone and it
will support a bluetooth phone if I ever upgrade.

$.04 per kb starting this month it was $.02 and if a pic is 32kb, we you
do the math for just sending one pic...if its a megapixel phone, then
well, I think you better go with the plan

Rosco wrote:
> FWIW cried out
>
>
>>Getting a camera phone without vision means that she will need to
>>download pictures to the computer via cable when she gets home,
>>then email them as attachments to people.
>>
>>No longer will she be able to instantly share photos with others
>>(which is a big part of having a camera phone).
>>
>>It would almost make more sense to just buy her non-camera phone,
>>and then a digital camera to carry around with her.
>>
>>You could get her one without a vision subscription, but (correct
>>me if I am wrong) ... if she attempts to use vision anyway, they
>>will hit her with a per-kilobyte charge instead of a flat fee
>>which could really add up.
>>
>>I wouldn't get a vision phone without vision, as an inadvertant
>>keypress could incur me $100 of data charges if I hit a really
>>gnarly link on the web browser. I heard of one guy that got hit
>>with a $2,000 charge because he forgot to add Vision to his phone.
>> I think Sprint negotiated with him, but still .... do you want to
>>chance it?
>>
>>My advice would be to get Vision with a vision phone, or get a
>>phone that absolutely cannot use Vision.
>>
>>
>
>
> The per kb rate is nominal, I am not sure exactly what it is, but
> $100.00 is alot of data, especially $2000.00. If you occasionally just
> download one ringtone, or check e-mail on the phone the charges will be
> very nominal a couple of dollars at the most.