|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > AT-T wireless service > February 2008 > Unlimited voice AND data for only $99 come to a GSM network starting
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Unlimited voice AND data for only $99 come to a GSM network starting
|
|
| 4phun 2008-02-19, 10:33 pm |
| T-Mobile Offers Unlimited Plan, Too
Phone Scoop posted Today, 4:35 PM by Eric M. Zeman
Today T-Mobile also announced that it will offer subscribers an
unlimited plan for $99 per month. T-Mobile's offering is the only plan
announced today that includes both voice and messaging services at the
$99 price point. The new plan will be available beginning February
21.
from T-Mobile
The GSM deal is better than Verizon's.
| |
|
| 4phun wrote:
> T-Mobile Offers Unlimited Plan, Too
> Phone Scoop posted Today, 4:35 PM by Eric M. Zeman
>
> Today T-Mobile also announced that it will offer subscribers an
> unlimited plan for $99 per month. T-Mobile's offering is the only plan
> announced today that includes both voice and messaging services at the
> $99 price point. The new plan will be available beginning February
> 21.
>
> from T-Mobile
>
> The GSM deal is better than Verizon's.
It's unlimited voice and messaging, not voice and data. You need to
understand the difference.
T-Mobile offers unlimited "voice and messaging" not data. Since they
don't have a data network in the U.S., they don't have to worry about
their network being overwhelmed.
Sprint is now the only carrier without an unlimited plan. If they really
want to trump the competition then they could offer a true unlimited
voice _and_ data plan. Unlikely since the reason AT&T and Verizon have
capped their data plans is because the 3G networks don't have sufficient
capacity for such plans. At $60/month for true unlimited data, a lot of
DSL users might be tempted to use 3G as their primary Internet connection.
| |
|
| 4phun wrote:
> T-Mobile Offers Unlimited Plan, Too
> Phone Scoop posted Today, 4:35 PM by Eric M. Zeman
>
> Today T-Mobile also announced that it will offer subscribers an
> unlimited plan for $99 per month. T-Mobile's offering is the only plan
> announced today that includes both voice and messaging services at the
> $99 price point. The new plan will be available beginning February
> 21.
>
> from T-Mobile
>
> The GSM deal is better than Verizon's.
Analysts say Sprint will offer unlimited voice and messaging for between
$60 and $80 in the next few weeks. If Sprint went one further, and
offered unlimited voice and (relatively) unlimited 3G data for $100,
that would really shake things up. What does Sprint have to lose at this
point?
| |
|
| Todd H. wrote:
> As for a cite, anyone who visited news.cnet.com today would've tripped
> over the headline:
>
> http://www.news.com/Sprint-expected...ml?tag=nefd.top
Actually I saw the "$60-80" from
"http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/02/20/ap4676170.html"
It's always amusing to see "he who must not be named" demanding
citations for widely disseminated news stories, while at the same time
never providing citations for any of the claims he makes up, and never
providing any factual basis for disputing any of the citations that
others make.
He's never provided a citation for extended GSM, despite repeated requests.
He's never provided a citation disputing the accuracy of the network
quality surveys, despite repeated requests.
He's never provided a citation disputing the USA Today story that Apple
approached Verizon with the iPhone prior to going to Cingular/AT&T,
despite repeated requests.
He complains that people treat him badly, but if he would change his
behavior he would be forgiven and perhaps he could make some useful
contributions.
| |
|
| Todd H. wrote:
> John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> writes:
>
>
> It wasn't meant as an insult, but rather criticism of criticism.
>
> Why be a pain in the XXX over a cite when a) you rarely give them
> yourself, and b) one for this was exceedingly easy to find?"
For such a widely publicized and current news item I didn't see the need
to include a link, but "he who must not be named" isn't happy unless he
has something to complain about. Yet he rarely includes any citations on
anything he posts because when you make up stuff out of thin air it's
tough to find any citations to back you up.
| |
|
| Todd H. wrote:
> John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> writes:
>
>
> It wasn't meant as an insult, but rather criticism of criticism.
> Why be a pain in the XXX over a cite when a) you rarely give them
> yourself, and b) one for this was exceedingly easy to find?"
For such a widely publicized and current news item I didn't see the need
to include a link, but "he who must not be named" isn't happy unless he
has something to complain about. Yet he rarely includes any citations on
anything he posts because when you make up stuff out of thin air it's
tough to find any citations to back you up.
BTW, watch out for the latest crap from "he who must not be named,"
which is changing the newsgroups to where follow-up posts are directed
to include alt.cellular.cingular, a newsgroup for which there is no
corresponding carrier, while removing newsgroups that are actually
relevant. Pathetic and sad.
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> Sprint beat everyone to it. They offered unlimited voice and data in a few
> "beta" markets late last year for $99, IIRC. It included "Power Vision"
> data only (on-phone data- no tethering.) I suspect they'll just expand
> that plan everywhere to compete.
Sprint could try a desperation move and offer 3G pseudo-unlimited data
and unlimited voice (including unlimited voice roaming to make up for
their limited network). For $80 I'd sign up in a minute if Sprint were
to add coverage to my area.
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 19 Feb 2008 18:33:55 -0800 Pegleg wrote:
>
>
> The 26 million of us using it (at about 60% of Verizon's pricing!) seem
> satisfied! ;-)
Perhaps, but apparently not as satisfied as other carrier's users
considering the churn numbers. About 25% of T-Mobile's U.S. retail
subscribers leave each year, compared to about 11% of Verizon's retail
subscribers, and about 14% of AT&T's retail subscribers. At least they
now have less churn than Sprint!
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> Um, no. Steven ADDED the .attws group to a bunch of threads, but he never
> dropped groups already there and forced redirection SOLELY to a group not
> in the original conversation like you're attempting now.
True.
> IIRC, you condemned Steven for that because it caused disruption of the
> group due to fragmented threads, and yet you're doing it yourself... Hmmm...
Yes, copying alt.cellular.attws on follow-ups to posts to
alt.cellular.cingular did cause fragmented threads. However I felt it
was helpful to get threads moved over to the proper newsgroup, and that
it helped speed the transition. A similar thing happened when the
T-Mobile newsgroup took over from the Voicestream newsgroup.
> Hypocrisy, thy name is Nav...
>
> Ah, forget it- too easy!
Argh, don't say the name. It's "he who must not be named."
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> While both of your actions were childish and wrong, at least Steven just
> added alt.cellular.attws to the newsgroups list- he didn't set a
> follow-up designed to divert responses ONLY to his NG of choice.
Oh please, I added alt.cellular.attws because it was time to start
moving everyone over to the appropriate news group for wireless by AT&T.
Yes it resulted in some thread fragments, but it had the desired result
of others also including alt.cellular.attws in follow-ups, and
eventually moving over to the proper newsgroup, and then removing
"alt.cellular.cingular" from follow-ups entirely.
Navas removed other newsgroups, and added alt.cellular.cingular, because
he's extremely upset that the newsgroup he proposed and wrote the
charter for is going away, it's as simple as that. It's the same reason
he posts the Cingular charter to the alt.cellular.attws newsgroup even
though it has no relevance, and even though several regular contributors
have requested that he stop.
Personally I think it was rather childish for someone to report him to
his ISP, the Usenet equivalent of "I'm going to tell my mommy on you."
His behavior is certainly disruptive, but nothing that an ISP is going
to do anything about. He certainly was free to create a new group when
Cingular changed its name, i.e. alt.cellular.att, but he chose not to do
so. alt.cellular.attws fits pretty well, and at least it relates
peripherally to Cingular, since Cingular did acquire AT&T Wireless.
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> But again, what makes attws the "proper group?" The new AT&T is the old
> Cingular- not the old ATTWS.
While technically alt.cellular.attws was for AT&T Wireless, no one
proposed a new group when Cingular changed to "Wireless from AT&T," and
their URL became "http://www.wireless.att.com." There is some history
there too, as the old AT&T Wireless _was_ formed by spinning off the
wireless division of AT&T into a separate company, and the current
"Wireless from AT&T" does include the old AT&T Wireless company. A
better explanation is at "http://tinyurl.com/2jmkx8".
There's nothing "official" about "alt.cellular.attws" becoming the group
for discussion of wireless from AT&T, it was just logical to use an
existing newsgroup with an appropriate name.
| |
|
| clifto wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
> "Slightly", he says.
If you compare the plan minutes at different price points, using one of
the comparison engines for wireless, the prices for peak minutes of
voice are very comparable at AT&T, Sprint, & Verizon. T-Mobile gives you
a lot more peak minutes for the price. See
"http://www.myrateplan.com/wireless_plans/". With Sprint you can get
SERO rates which don't show up of course in the plan comparisons.
For unlimited, T-Mobile is cheaper because it includes text messaging,
though the savvy consumer that wanted unlimited would port their number
to PagePlus and get unlimited on the Verizon network for significantly
less, around $75, versus what will be about $115 after taxes and fees on
Verizon or AT&T or T-Mobile.
For data, Verizon is comparable to AT&T, even though they have a much
larger 3G network. Sprint is cheaper, if they cover the places you
expect to need 3G.
| |
|
| M.L. wrote:
>
> The $75. PagePlus plan is not unlimited.
It's unlimited on Verizon's network. Close enough.
"http://pagepluscellular.com/Plans/Unlimited%20Voice.aspx"
It's actually around $69 (for a 30 day month), since you can buy the $80
PagePlus card for around $74. $2.49*30*74/80.
I'm sure that the total cost of the $99 unlimited deals are closer to
$115 once all the taxes and fees are added.
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 26 Feb 2008 10:39:05 -0800 SMS wrote:
>
>
>
> Here we go again... That's a loaded comparison, since Sprint's nights
> start 2 hours earlier, and AT&T's minutes rollover, both of which give more
> effective minutes than the comparable number from Verizon, but of course,
> that's Verizon's intent- to make us believe they offer and equal number of
> minutes for the dollar.
Actually their intent is to get users to buy a larger plan once they get
dinged with overages because of the worse off-peak.
AT&T's rollover does not give you more effective minutes. It's the same
average number of minutes each month. If you purchase a plan too large
for you then you end up racking up massive numbers of rollover minutes,
if you purchase a plan too small for you then you still get dinged with
overages. Rollover is great if you have occasional peaks in usage at
some times of year.
>
>
> True, unless they want data. An unlimted tal, text and data plan on T-Mo
> would be $106. ($120 on PDAs/Blackberries.)
Even cheaper on Sprint.
> You're assuming a separate data account with a PC card, rather than a
> tetherable-data add-on.
No, I'm assuming data on a PDA type phone or data on a PC Card, Express
Card, or USB card.
|
|
|
|
|