|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > March 2007 > AT&T/Cingular Customers Call Free to AT&T Landline Customers
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 |
AT&T/Cingular Customers Call Free to AT&T Landline Customers
|
|
| jeremy 2007-01-19, 10:33 am |
| 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/b...r=1&oref=slogin
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-01-19, 10:33 am |
| On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:39:38 GMT, "jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> 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.
Maybe 20 meet the requiremenrts.
>
>Good marketing strategy.
Bad marketing, when folks find they dont get that free calling because
of all the gotchas.
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/b...r=1&oref=slogin
>
NOW THE REST OF THE STORY.
Jeremy left out all the gotchas.. It's hardly a simple plan.
To call a landline free, the landline customer
1. Must be an AT&T POTS customer, within the regular AT&T service
area. (SBC/Bellsouth) on the landline.
2. Must have AT&T unlimited long distance and unlimited local on the
landline. Far more expensive than say Vonage.
and....
3. Wireless customer must have a $59.99 or more AT&T wireless plan.
4. The press release fails to mention (and thus likely time charges at
the wireless end) calls from landline to wireless.
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-01-19, 10:33 am |
| On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:12:45 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:39:38 GMT, "jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>Maybe 20 meet the requiremenrts.
>
>
>Bad marketing, when folks find they dont get that free calling because
>of all the gotchas.
>
>
>NOW THE REST OF THE STORY.
>
>Jeremy left out all the gotchas.. It's hardly a simple plan.
> To call a landline free, the landline customer
>
>1. Must be an AT&T POTS customer, within the regular AT&T service
>area. (SBC/Bellsouth) on the landline.
>
>2. Must have AT&T unlimited long distance and unlimited local on the
>landline. Far more expensive than say Vonage.
>
>and....
>
>3. Wireless customer must have a $59.99 or more AT&T wireless plan.
>
>4. The press release fails to mention (and thus likely time charges at
>the wireless end) calls from landline to wireless.
More gotchas - in the press release/web site, but not the news story.
5. You have to get a new Cingular "Unity" plan (likely will decrease
your plan minutes).
6. You have to have combined ATT/Cingular billing; likely the $5 month
credit for combined billing is going away due to the "benefit" of the
Unity plan.
http://www.cingular.com/learn/why/u...information.jsp
Read it and weep. Put a pencil to it. For most people, you lose.
| |
|
| In article < j6o1r2lhptvii6dc76nq
q1m3gtlfaj9hkh@4ax.com>,
karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:12:45 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
>
>
> More gotchas - in the press release/web site, but not the news story.
>
> 5. You have to get a new Cingular "Unity" plan (likely will decrease
> your plan minutes).
>
> 6. You have to have combined ATT/Cingular billing; likely the $5 month
> credit for combined billing is going away due to the "benefit" of the
> Unity plan.
>
> http://www.cingular.com/learn/why/u...information.jsp
>
> Read it and weep. Put a pencil to it. For most people, you lose.
Yes, their ads will be a huge headline announcing FREE CALLING WITH ATT,
a short teaser with a picture of a teen on a phone calling a friend at
home, then 50 paragraphs of 5 pt. type disclaimers.
LOL
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| jeremy 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/b...r=1&oref=slogin
Of those 100 million landlines, how many have AT&T unlimited long
distance at at least $40/month, and how many of the cellular lines have
$59.99/900 minutes. I guess it's aimed at businesses.
| |
|
| SMS wrote:
> jeremy wrote:
>
> Of those 100 million landlines, how many have AT&T unlimited long
> distance at at least $40/month, and how many of the cellular lines have
> $59.99/900 minutes. I guess it's aimed at businesses.
To be sure, it's an aggressive marketing plan intended to nudge clients
into a package focused on bundled service from at&t. Not that there's
anything wrong with that.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
| |
| jeremy 2007-01-19, 3:33 pm |
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:45b0f96d$0$6901
8$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> jeremy wrote:
>
> Of those 100 million landlines, how many have AT&T unlimited long distance
> at at least $40/month, and how many of the cellular lines have $59.99/900
> minutes. I guess it's aimed at businesses.
Still, it sounds like a powerful advertising incentive. If your business
and/or family are on AT&T landlines, that could give you a lot of free
calls. Even if the monthly charge is a bit on the high side, there are
going to be people that will come out ahead.
| |
| decaturtxcowboy 2007-01-20, 4:33 am |
| jeremy 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.
Combine that with Remote Call Forwarding, and you could effectively get
free calls to anyone else. Assuming you have the unlimited LD package on
your home phone.
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-01-20, 3:33 pm |
| On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:08:37 -0600, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>SMS wrote:
>
>
>To be sure, it's an aggressive marketing plan intended to nudge clients
>into a package focused on bundled service from at&t. Not that there's
>anything wrong with that.
It's called deceptive advertising. Making like they're giving you
something for nothing when in fact you're losing.
At the very least the monthly discount for combined billing.
| |
|
| karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> It's called deceptive advertising. Making like they're giving you
> something for nothing when in fact you're losing.
AT&T has long been the master at deceptive long distance calling plans.
| |
|
| karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:08:37 -0600, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
>
>
> It's called deceptive advertising. Making like they're giving you
> something for nothing when in fact you're losing.
>
> At the very least the monthly discount for combined billing.
Well... uhhhh... yeah... all advertising is either a half-truth or a
half-lie, depending on whether or not the audience is in the marketing
business. I'm not.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
| |
| jeremy 2007-01-20, 3:33 pm |
|
< karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net> wrote in message
news:3ot4r2pp3u7gchk
e6qsg3787ppsbqlrdge@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:08:37 -0600, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
>
>
> It's called deceptive advertising. Making like they're giving you
> something for nothing when in fact you're losing.
>
> At the very least the monthly discount for combined billing.
I agree that this will not be beneficial to everybody, but . . .
Those customers that meet the requirements will see their total number of
free calling numbers increase by a factor of 4 (I think that Cingular had
about 25 million m2m, and they now are adding 100m landlines).
I hope that my own carrier, Sprint, offers something similar to its
customers.
With all the stagnation in innovative discount plans lately, it is good to
see "something" new.
I am quite happy with Sprint. $30/month per line, 7 PM N/W, free roaming,
even local calls will hop onto Verizon if there is no Sprint tower,
unlimited M2M (I use that a lot), Free long distance. C'mon, where can I go
and get a deal that is much better than that? And, unlike my experience
with Cingular, after they took control of my ATTWS service, my calls go
through on the first try, and I rarely get a dropped call.
All I want to do is to be able to make and receive calls. No need for
anything else. Just have my phone connect when I need it. I was happier
with my old Motorola handset, back in the analog days, than I was with
Cingular. My daughter, on the other hand, uses them and loves them. Go
figure.
| |
| 3Gfreak 2007-01-21, 3:33 pm |
| VONAGE is VOIP! Not landline service and there are a few "Must Have's"
to get this package, but it isn't much different than having a
landline, cellphone etc. The benefits are far greater and much more
cost effective in the long run.
3GFreak
www.mobilevertigo.com
karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:39:38 GMT, "jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
> Maybe 20 meet the requiremenrts.
>
>
> Bad marketing, when folks find they dont get that free calling because
> of all the gotchas.
>
>
> NOW THE REST OF THE STORY.
>
> Jeremy left out all the gotchas.. It's hardly a simple plan.
> To call a landline free, the landline customer
>
> 1. Must be an AT&T POTS customer, within the regular AT&T service
> area. (SBC/Bellsouth) on the landline.
>
> 2. Must have AT&T unlimited long distance and unlimited local on the
> landline. Far more expensive than say Vonage.
>
> and....
>
> 3. Wireless customer must have a $59.99 or more AT&T wireless plan.
>
> 4. The press release fails to mention (and thus likely time charges at
> the wireless end) calls from landline to wireless.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-01-21, 3:33 pm |
| In article <1169411951.047091.172270@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"3Gfreak" <tastybreeze@gmail.com> wrote:
> VONAGE is VOIP! Not landline service and there are a few "Must Have's"
> to get this package, but it isn't much different than having a
> landline, cellphone etc. The benefits are far greater and much more
> cost effective in the long run.
Not sure what your post had to do with the article you actually replied
to...
Anyway, vonage is overpriced. WAY overpriced. Do your research.
| |
| jeremy 2007-01-21, 10:33 pm |
|
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-B95871. 16285121012007@nntp2
.usenetserver.com...
> In article <1169411951.047091.172270@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> "3Gfreak" <tastybreeze@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Not sure what your post had to do with the article you actually replied
> to...
>
> Anyway, vonage is overpriced. WAY overpriced. Do your research.
>
Published reports have noted that 25% of Vonage's customers leave each year.
Vonage has to find replacements for 25% of their customer base annually,
just to stay in place. If memory serves me correctly, Vonage has not turned
a profit yet.
| |
| 3Gfreak 2007-01-21, 10:33 pm |
| Well I guess I didn't make my self clear, but I what I was trying to
say is that the landline service is a much more cost effective way to
go than Vonage - so actually it had alot to do with the post :)
3GFreak
www.mobilevertigo.com
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <1169411951.047091.172270@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> "3Gfreak" <tastybreeze@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Not sure what your post had to do with the article you actually replied
> to...
>
> Anyway, vonage is overpriced. WAY overpriced. Do your research.
| |
|
| 3Gfreak wrote:
> Well I guess I didn't make my self clear, but I what I was trying to
> say is that the landline service is a much more cost effective way to
> go than Vonage - so actually it had alot to do with the post :)
Vonage is doing very poorly, mainly because it's so cost ineffective
compared to a landline and a cheap long-distance service like OneSuite
or TalkLoop. Even among VOIP providers, their system is less capable,
and more expensive than other companies, like Voicestick.
| |
| Thurman 2007-01-22, 4:33 am |
|
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-B95871. 16285121012007@nntp2
.usenetserver.com...
>
> Anyway, vonage is overpriced. WAY overpriced. Do your research.
After SWB/SBC/ATT charged me 98 cents a minute for Canada calls, I went
Vonage where Canada is local.
Charter called to offer 32 cents/min for calls to Costa Rica vs ATT's 34
cents; Vonage is 2 (yep, two). I call every week now, not every quarter.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-01-22, 4:33 am |
| At 21 Jan 2007 20:04:03 -0800 SMS wrote:
> Vonage is doing very poorly, mainly because it's so cost ineffective
> compared to a landline and a cheap long-distance service like
> OneSuite or TalkLoop.
They remind me of AOL in it's heyday. They price themselves above
market, capitalizing on the ignorance of their users who think this is
how all providers of that service work.
Take the Vonage soft-phone, for example- first, they didn't offer it
until long after other providers did, and then they have the nerve to
charge $10/month extra for it!
> Even among VOIP providers, their system is less capable, and more
> expensive than other companies, like Voicestick.
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.
I've been playing with Voicestick more since finding a good deal on their
unlocked MG-3 ATA on eBay ($10!) Sound quality is good, and it's a
pleasure using a real phone and not needing a PC or proprietary wireless
hardware, like with Skype. The fact that I can use a softphone as well,
for no extra cost, on my PPC phone is a bonus. (That comes in handy when
I'm stuck in a hotel with free Wi-Fi and crummy T-Mobile reception!)
| |
| jeremy 2007-01-22, 10:33 am |
| "Thurman" <thurman@bigplanet.com> wrote in message
news:hDXsh.155$g57.110@newsfe02.lga...
>
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
> news:elmop-B95871. 16285121012007@nntp2
.usenetserver.com...
>
> After SWB/SBC/ATT charged me 98 cents a minute for Canada calls, I went
> Vonage where Canada is local.
>
> Charter called to offer 32 cents/min for calls to Costa Rica vs ATT's 34
> cents; Vonage is 2 (yep, two). I call every week now, not every quarter.
>
>
>
Skype is offering unlimited calls for $14.95 per year! The price doubles
after 1/31.
There are numerous phone sets offered that look and act like ordinary
cordless phones, but which run the calls over Skype.
They will even give you a local phone number, so you can receive incoming
calls from people using regular phone lines, for $38.00 annually.
| |
|
| 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.
If they make a lot of long distance calls, AND they have broadband cable
internet, AND they need to make a lot of peak time calls that they can't
use N&W or MTM on their cell phone for, then $25 may be better than
their landline. Personally, I'd have to make three hours of long
distance calls per month before Vonage would be worthwhile, not counting
the fact that cable broadband would cost me an extra $25 per month over
DSL, which would pay for more than another twenty hours of long distance.
People get carried away with "unlimited" because they are unaware of how
cheap long distance calling actually is if they sign up for a good
service such as TalkLoop. They're doing their calculations using LD
rates from AT&T or other high cost LD provider. They might also benefit
from switching to a wireless carrier like Sprint that has 7 p.m. nights
and weekends, versus 9 p.m. of the other carriers.
| |
| jeremy 2007-01-22, 10:33 am |
| > Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>
The fact remains that Vonage is operating in the red, so it would be
difficult for them to justify a rate reduction.
I use Verizon's VoIP service, VoiceWing, also $24.95 per month, and it is a
Godsend, considering that I routinely used to generate LD bills in excess of
$200/month, back in the days of AT&T Reach Out America (First hour was
$10.00, and additional hours were $7.80 each, billed in increments of one
minute after the first full hour).
These are, truly, great days for long distance customers. Who ever thought
that we could communicate for free via Instant Messenger, or for $15/year
via Skype, or $25.00 per month on VoIP lines? Who would have believed, back
in 1984, that AT&T long distance would one day be replaced by cheap
flat-rate substitutes? I, for one, am truly grateful. I remember in the
80s, when a call on Bell coast-to-coast was $.57 per minute during the
daytime.
| |
|
| jeremy wrote:
>
> 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.
| |
| jeremy 2007-01-22, 10:33 pm |
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:45b54732$0$6895
2$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> jeremy wrote:
>
> 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 is so bad with $25.00/month? Vonage's customers leave, according to
industry reports, because they are unhappy with the call quality, not
because of price.
Does Cingular price their wireless service to be competitive?
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-01-23, 4:33 am |
| At 23 Jan 2007 03:56:39 +0000 jeremy wrote:
> What is so bad with $25.00/month?
Nothing per se, but that's at the high end of unlimted VoIP. Others do
it for $15 or $20, and many offer pay as you go, which is a bargain for
those who use VoIP primarily for international calls (which typically
fall outside the unlimited US/Canada plans.)
> Vonage's customers leave, according to
> industry reports, because they are unhappy with the call quality, not
> because of price.
But the two are related: perceptions of "quality" are colored by value.
People might expect less "quality" from Vonage for $15 than $25, much
like the quality expectation of a $1 McDonald's hamburger is less than a
$10 burger at the Hard Rock.
No offense to Vonage, but my landline service is only $25 (without LD, of
course.) For $25/month I'd expect the Vonage experience to be very close
to landline in quality and uptime, whereas for $10 or $15/month, I'd cut
them a lot more slack.
> Does Cingular price their wireless service to be competitive?
Of course. Their rates are almost in lockstep with Verizon's, despite
higher costs, higher churn, etc. Remember, "competitive" doesn't mean
"cheapest," just in the ballpark, with reasonable justifications for
higher prices! Verizon commands relatively higher prices because the
public's perception of quality ("the network") allows it. Cingular can
offer fewer minutes than others for the same monthly rate as others
because they give you "rollover," etc.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-01-23, 7:33 am |
| In article <hDXsh.155$g57.110@newsfe02.lga>,
"Thurman" <thurman@bigplanet.com> wrote:
>
> After SWB/SBC/ATT charged me 98 cents a minute for Canada calls, I went
> Vonage where Canada is local.
>
> Charter called to offer 32 cents/min for calls to Costa Rica vs ATT's 34
> cents; Vonage is 2 (yep, two). I call every week now, not every quarter.
That's nice.
But I repeat: Vonage is overpriced. WAY overpriced. Do your research.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-01-23, 7:33 am |
| In article <aP3th.2514$Kf.1481@trndny07>, "jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com>
wrote:
> Skype is offering unlimited calls for $14.95 per year! The price doubles
> after 1/31.
>
> There are numerous phone sets offered that look and act like ordinary
> cordless phones, but which run the calls over Skype.
>
> They will even give you a local phone number, so you can receive incoming
> calls from people using regular phone lines, for $38.00 annually.
The computer isn't the center of my household, so Skype does me no good.
I use regular phones for my phoning, and I watch TV on a regular TV as
well. I don't sit at a computer screen to watch TV.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-01-23, 7:33 am |
| In article < 45b4d00f$0$69035$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> If they make a lot of long distance calls, AND they have broadband cable
> internet, AND they need to make a lot of peak time calls that they can't
> use N&W or MTM on their cell phone for, then $25 may be better than
> their landline.
That's right.
But $8/month for exactly the same thing is even better.
Vonage is WAY overpriced.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-01-23, 7:33 am |
| In article <TB5th.16692$gS1.7668@trndny01>,
"jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:
> Who would have believed, back
> in 1984, that AT&T long distance would one day be replaced by cheap
> flat-rate substitutes?
Hmmmmm. Arthur C. Clarke, for one.
Back in--what was it, 1948?--he postulated January 1, 2000 as the end of
all long distance billing. He wasn't far off.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-01-23, 7:33 am |
| In article <XHfth.22592$gS1.21423@trndny01>,
"jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:
> What is so bad with $25.00/month? Vonage's customers leave, according to
> industry reports, because they are unhappy with the call quality, not
> because of price.
What's wrong with $25/month is that the same service with the same
features is available for $8/month elsewhere.
Jesus, kid. Get a clue.
| |
| Double Tap 2007-01-23, 7:33 am |
|
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-B8D4EC. 06354923012007@nntp2
.usenetserver.com...
> In article <XHfth.22592$gS1.21423@trndny01>,
> "jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
> What's wrong with $25/month is that the same service with the same
> features is available for $8/month elsewhere.
>
> Jesus, kid. Get a clue.
This is at least the second time you said $8 elsewhere.
So who provides the service at that price and will give me land line quality
?
Double Tap
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-01-23, 10:33 am |
| In article <ebnth.13338$pQ3.6822@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Double Tap" <doubletap@37.com> wrote:
>
> This is at least the second time you said $8 elsewhere.
> So who provides the service at that price and will give me land line quality
> ?
Sunrocket.
| |
|
| jeremy wrote:
> What is so bad with $25.00/month? Vonage's customers leave, according to
> industry reports, because they are unhappy with the call quality, not
> because of price.
$25 is more than what most people spend for their land line and long
distance combined. Remember, a great deal of long distance is now done
on off-peak or mobile to mobile cell phone minutes. Not free, but
included at no extra cost.
If someone really was cost sensitive and did a great deal of long
distance calling, then they'd choose a less expensive, and more capable
VOIP provider than Vonage.
Vonage ends up with a very small target market: people that make a lot
of long distance calls, have expensive landline service (every extra
feature on their landline such as call-waiting, caller-ID, three-way
calling, etc.), AND that believe the Vonage ads, rather than doing any
research prior to purchasing.
> Does Cingular price their wireless service to be competitive?
Yes.
| |
|
| Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <ebnth.13338$pQ3.6822@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Double Tap" <doubletap@37.com> wrote:
>
>
> Sunrocket.
Sunrocket is $17 per month. Yes, everyone knows that you signed up when
there was a half-price special, but the cost now is $199 for two years.
"http://www.sunrocket.com/"
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-01-23, 10:33 am |
| In article < 45b62e0f$0$69014$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> Sunrocket is $17 per month. Yes, everyone knows that you signed up when
> there was a half-price special, but the cost now is $199 for two years.
Just wait for the special to come back around. They do it regularly,
usually on holidays and/or holiday weekends.
It'll be either $199 for two years, or $99 for one year. Either way,
$8.33/month.
| |
|
| Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article < 45b4d00f$0$69035$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> That's right.
>
> But $8/month for exactly the same thing is even better.
Sunrocket is $17/month. The half-price special is long over. Still, $17
is better than $25.
| |
| jeremy 2007-01-23, 10:33 am |
| "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:45b62d22$0$6898
8$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
> $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.
>
I use VoiceWing, also $24.95/month, with no term commitment, and it is a
BARGAIN over what I paid when long distance was billed by the minute. While
I realize that there might be cheaper services out there, I like the fact
that Verizon remains my service provider, rather than some unknown company
without a track record.
I can think of lots of other things to complain about, but not $25.00/month
for a line, all the calling features, and unlimited LD to the US and
Canada--that is an amazing value for me. I formerly paid hundreds and got
less.
Finally I am seeing the fruits of divestiture. Granted, the Internet played
a big role in this, but I never thought I'd live to see the day when I could
make unlimited calls to anywhere for a set price. Combine that with my
cellular N/W and my ability to communicate free via Instant Messengers, and
I feel like a kid in a candy store.
And now Skype is running a $15/ANNUAL promotion. Life is good!
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-01-23, 12:33 pm |
| In article < 45b63649$0$68949$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> Sunrocket is $17/month. The half-price special is long over.
No, it's a recurring thing.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-01-23, 12:33 pm |
| At 23 Jan 2007 11:52:51 -0500 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article < 45b63649$0$68949$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> No, it's a recurring thing.
It used to be a lot more recurring than it seems to be recently. I
haven't seen it since maybe last summer?
Usually when it is offered, it's a one-day only special, often, like you
said, on a holiday. I think I saw it last Easter and last July 4th.
Valentine's Day might be a good time to look if anyone's interested-
Sunrocket could easily pitch it as a "call your loved ones cheap"
promotion.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-01-23, 12:33 pm |
| In article <ep5huj$52l$3@aioe.org>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
> It used to be a lot more recurring than it seems to be recently. I
> haven't seen it since maybe last summer?
I jumped on board last summer, and it recurred every holiday since then
that I can remember.
| |
| Kevin K 2007-01-26, 10:33 pm |
| On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:39:38 UTC, "jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> 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/b...r=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.
--
| |
| Kevin K 2007-01-26, 10:33 pm |
| On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:43:30 UTC, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
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.
--
| |
| John Navas 2007-01-27, 4:33 am |
| On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:22:22 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45b54732$0$68952$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>jeremy wrote:
>
>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/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| 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.
| |
| John Navas 2007-01-27, 12:33 pm |
| On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 07:21:52 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45bb6e14$0$69032$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Kevin K wrote:
>
>
>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/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-01-27, 12:33 pm |
| 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 $39.99, etc.)
Apparently the complex functions of three different companies spit out
exactly the same results.
| |
| John Navas 2007-01-27, 12:33 pm |
| On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 07:15:51 -0700, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <epg2nn$k9k$1@aioe.org>:
>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.
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/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-01-27, 3:33 pm |
| At 27 Jan 2007 18:17:49 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
> 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.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-01-27, 3:33 pm |
| In article < sc5nr29ligvrhabqg59c
ed9kp35bsfc69o@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
| |
|
|
"Todd Allcock" < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in message
news:epg2nn$k9k$1@ai
oe.org...
> 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
| |
| John Navas 2007-01-27, 10:34 pm |
| On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 11:56:27 -0700, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <epg7jg$1gh$1@aioe.org>:
>At 27 Jan 2007 18:17:49 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>
>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.
>
>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/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-01-27, 10:34 pm |
| On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 15:37:13 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
<elmop-D1F643. 15371327012007@nntp2
.usenetserver.com>:
>In article < sc5nr29ligvrhabqg59c
ed9kp35bsfc69o@4ax.com>,
> John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>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/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-01-27, 10:34 pm |
| On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 07:15:51 -0700, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <epg2nn$k9k$1@aioe.org>:
>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.
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/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-01-27, 10:34 pm |
| At 27 Jan 2007 23:10:19 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
> 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.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-01-27, 10:34 pm |
| In article < 5cmnr295oa07gsqfn751
k0o6f7r98idfdp@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> It is current for those of us that have it,
For those who got it when it was available.
It is NOT current for anyone who wants to buy TODAY.
Stay with me here, John. Stay with me here. I know it's complicated,
but you can do it.
| |
| John Navas 2007-01-27, 10:34 pm |
| On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:51:51 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
<elmop-DEC7CF. 18515127012007@nntp2
.usenetserver.com>:
>In article < 5cmnr295oa07gsqfn751
k0o6f7r98idfdp@4ax.com>,
> John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>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/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-01-27, 10:34 pm |
| On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:49:27 -0700, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <epgofi$9cg$1@aioe.org>:
>At 27 Jan 2007 23:10:19 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>
>Yes- I mentioned the "three largest carriers" and then also by name-
>Verizon, Cingular and Sprint.
Sorry, but I fail to see the significance of that. Lots of things can
be "proven" if you artificially constrain the alternatives.
>
>True. Although, in fairness, they are not one of the three largest
>carriers, nor are they named either "Verizon," "Cingular" or "Sprint."
Nonetheless a major player.
>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!
I respectfully disagree. Competition is competition.
>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.)
Again, I respectfully disagree. To most cellular users, T-Mobile is in
the same category.
>
>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!)
Hardly -- MetroPCS is doing quite well in the markets it serves.
>
>
>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.
I think the reasons are much more the relative amount of investment and
longevity.
>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.
Maybe. Maybe not.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Kevin K 2007-01-27, 10:34 pm |
| On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:37:13 UTC, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> They don't even offer the 450 minutes anymore--but I got 450 minutes
> with Rollover on a company discount.
>
>
Their web page still shows it offered.
| |
| John Navas 2007-01-27, 10:34 pm |
| On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 01:05:31 GMT, "Kevin K" <kevink4@gmail.com> wrote in
<KIRoJuEXw9g9-pn2- FmRQ2881Mu1D@localho
st>:
>On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:37:13 UTC, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
><elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>
>Their web page still shows it offered.
Amazing how many people rant without actually checking. ;)
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-01-27, 10:34 pm |
| In article < v4vnr2heg7ouvtb10dvk
476b3e6b64b67h@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> Amazing how many people rant without actually checking. ;)
They used to offer it for family--but not anymore.
| |
| decaturtxcowboy 2007-01-28, 4:33 am |
| John Navas wrote:
> Lots of things can
> be "proven" if you artificially constrain the alternatives.
Including one's self as a credible citation when no other credible evidence
can be found.
| |
| John Navas 2007-01-28, 10:33 am |
| On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 07:25:25 GMT, decaturtxcowboy
< nope_none_@nowayspam
.com> wrote in
<FdYuh.27531$sR.27325@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>:
>John Navas wrote:
>
>
>Including one's self as a credible citation when no other credible evidence
>can be found.
Or how to make yourself look childish and nasty. ;)
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Tinman 2007-01-28, 12:33 pm |
| "decaturtxcowboy" < nope_none_@nowayspam
.com> wrote in message
news:FdYuh.27531$sR.27325@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> John Navas wrote:
>
>
> Including one's self as a credible citation when no other credible
> evidence can be found.
That was definitely the funniest post I've seen from Navas in 2006.
His reply to Todd's "three largest carriers" post is the current leader for
2007. Don't like someone's argument? Change it!
I have to wonder if he's actually serious, or if this is some sort of "dry"
humor.
--
Mike
| |
| Kevin K 2007-01-28, 10:33 pm |
| On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 01:58:29 UTC, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article < v4vnr2heg7ouvtb10dvk
476b3e6b64b67h@4ax.com>,
> John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
> They used to offer it for family--but not anymore.
>
I didn't see that we were talking about family plans.
--
| |
|
| "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
>
> 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.
Is TalkLoop the best prepaid phone service to make international calls from
Cingular phone?
Thanks a lot...
| |
| John Navas 2007-01-29, 10:33 pm |
| On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 01:17:15 GMT, "Kevin K" <kevink4@gmail.com> wrote in
<KIRoJuEXw9g9-pn2- wdywJo7XsZy3@localho
st>:
>On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 01:58:29 UTC, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
><elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>
>I didn't see that we were talking about family plans.
That was of course a scramble. ;)
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| hj wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
>
> Is TalkLoop the best prepaid phone service to make international calls from
> Cingular phone?
Depends on the country. You can get really cheap calling cards for China
and Hong Kong in Chinatowns, though they often are only less expensive
when you make long calls, because there is a connection fee. The prices
are negotiable at the shops selling these, and you pay less if you can
bargain in Cantonese (San Francisco) or Mandarin (Silicon Valley).
TalkLoop and OneSuite are the ones to check out. They are less of a pain
to use than calling cards, due to their pinless operation (you can
program in several originating phone numbers that they recognize).
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-02-12, 10:33 pm |
| At 12 Feb 2007 16:57:44 -0800 SMS wrote:
> TalkLoop and OneSuite are the ones to check out. They are less of a
pain to use than calling cards, due to their pinless operation (you can
program in several originating phone numbers that they recognize).
You might also check out Voicestick. While they're actually a prepaid
VoIP provider with a free incoming number, they double as a pinless
calling card. You can setup three numbers (i.e. home, cell, work) that,
when they call your Voicestick number, instead of ringing it, get a dial
tone and let you call out using your Voicestick account balance and rates.
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 12 Feb 2007 16:57:44 -0800 SMS wrote:
>
>
> pain to use than calling cards, due to their pinless operation (you can
> program in several originating phone numbers that they recognize).
>
> You might also check out Voicestick. While they're actually a prepaid
> VoIP provider with a free incoming number, they double as a pinless
> calling card. You can setup three numbers (i.e. home, cell, work) that,
> when they call your Voicestick number, instead of ringing it, get a dial
> tone and let you call out using your Voicestick account balance and rates.
Good point. I also use Voicestick's incoming call and forwarding service
for my consulting business. I dropped the second landline, and now all
calls are forwarded to my cell phone, and the caller ID lets me know
that it's a business call. If I'm out of the country, I can forward it
to a number there, as I'll usually be using a prepaid cell phone.
For a while, you could combine unlimited Voicestick ($20) with the $30
Sprint calling plan, plus a $5 Sprint option for unlimited incoming and
outgoing calls to and from your "home" number, and essentially have
unlimited wireless calling for $55 + fees and taxes. You'd use your
Voicestick number as your "home" number (as far as Sprint was
concerned), and give out the Voicestick number as your cellular number,
and have all calls forwarded to your Sprint phone at no cost. For
outgoing, you'd call your Voicestick "Home" number at no cost and get a
dial tone. Alas, Sprint recently worsened their calling plans, and the
$5 option for unlimited calls to and from home also seems to have
disappeared. I guess that this would still work with T-Mobile's and
Alltel's Circle plans.
[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
Wireless Service.]
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|