|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > March 2007 > Re: Unlimited texting
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 |
Re: Unlimited texting
|
|
| Andy S 2007-03-20, 3:33 pm |
| >"nikkir" <nikkir.44ee00@cellbanter.com> wrote in message
>news:nikkir.44ee00@cellbanter.com...
>
> Does cingular offer an unlimited texting plan?
> http://www.rfshieldbox.com/
>
> --
> nikkir
>
In a way. For $5 on top of what you pay for a text plan, you can add
unlimited Mobile to Mobile as long as the parties are on cingular. Other
than that, no
--
Andrew D. Sisson
VZW VX8100 AC II
SonyEricsson W300i CINGULAR NATION SINCE MARCH 2006
| |
|
|
| John Navas 2007-03-23, 4:33 am |
| On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:05:17 -0400, "Andy S"
< adsisson@NOSPAMroche
ster.rr.com> wrote in
< 46003e8d$0$9008$4c36
8faf@roadrunner.com>:
[color=darkred]
>In a way. For $5 on top of what you pay for a text plan, you can add
>unlimited Mobile to Mobile as long as the parties are on cingular. Other
>than that, no
Mobile to Mobile is voice calling, not texting.
Cingular currently has an unlimited texting offer for $10/month.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Kevin Weaver 2007-03-23, 4:33 am |
|
John Navas wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:05:17 -0400, "Andy S"
> < adsisson@NOSPAMroche
ster.rr.com> wrote in
> < 46003e8d$0$9008$4c36
8faf@roadrunner.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> Mobile to Mobile is voice calling, not texting.
>
> Cingular currently has an unlimited texting offer for $10/month.
>
Which is a rip off. Why spend 10.00 a month when you can talk for free.
It cost's them less to have you use texting then voice.
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-23, 4:33 am |
| On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:09:38 -0700, Kevin Weaver
< kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote in
<zaKMh.1797$rj1.690@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>:
>John Navas wrote:
>
>Which is a rip off.
Then don't pay it.
>Why spend 10.00 a month when you can talk for free.
Because text works better than voice for some things.
>It cost's them less to have you use texting then voice.
Irrelevant.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Kevin Weaver 2007-03-23, 4:33 am |
|
John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:09:38 -0700, Kevin Weaver
> < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote in
> <zaKMh.1797$rj1.690@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>:
>
>
>
> Then don't pay it.
>
>
I Don't.
>
> Because text works better than voice for some things.
>
>
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>
Again, I think it's a ripoff. Why pay when you can talk for free. Ohh,
It's the cool thing to do.
| |
|
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:j1o60350f8k6f31
dhq87lfvd8br4dvp0ui@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:05:17 -0400, "Andy S"
> < adsisson@NOSPAMroche
ster.rr.com> wrote in
> < 46003e8d$0$9008$4c36
8faf@roadrunner.com>:
>
>
>
> Mobile to Mobile is voice calling, not texting.
>
> Cingular currently has an unlimited texting offer for $10/month.
You may want to check and revise your comment. Here in my area the services
have been revised showing an extra $5 charge if you wish to include
unlimited "mobile to mobile" messaging. This includes SMS and MMS.
JAW
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Kevin Weaver wrote:
> Which is a rip off. Why spend 10.00 a month when you can talk for free.
> It cost's them less to have you use texting then voice.
In the U.S., the cost of voice calls is much less, and the carriers view
texting solely as a way to increase ARPU, and as a result texting is not
widely used because it's so expensive compared with making a call. In
Europe and Asia, texting is also popular because most people commute by
public transit, and it's considered rude to be making a voice call on
public transit. In the U.S., most people commute by car and texting is
difficult while driving.
In Europe and Asia, texting is very inexpensive. The carriers encourage
it because it reduces the load on the network.
[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.]
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-23, 10:33 am |
| On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 06:29:24 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 4603d641$0$27199$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
>posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
>and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
>Wireless Service.]
Please stop polluting alt.cellular.attws by cross-posting these
incomplete thread fragments.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-23, 10:33 am |
| On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:41:36 -0700, Kevin Weaver
< kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote in
<xEKMh.1799$rj1.10@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>:
>I Don't.
>Again, I think it's a ripoff. Why pay when you can talk for free. Ohh,
>It's the cool thing to do.
Messaging is actually the more practical thing to do in many cases, such
as communicating in a place where you can't talk on the phone (e.g.,
movie theater, business conference), when text is of value to the
recipient (e.g., URL), can be used for services (e.g., Google searches),
broadcast to multiple recipients, to save time (especially with a
template), when you don't want to get into a conversation with the other
person, can be reviewed and edited before sending, can be stored
indefinitely or forwarded, when email is desired (i.e., SMS-to-email
gateway), hearing-impaired locations and/or callers, on and on.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-23, 10:33 am |
| On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 06:29:38 -0500, "JAW" < jawolife@nospamhotma
il.com>
wrote in <eu0dn701rk9@enews5.newsguy.com>:
>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:j1o60350f8k6f31
dhq87lfvd8br4dvp0ui@
4ax.com...
>
>You may want to check and revise your comment. Here in my area the services
>have been revised showing an extra $5 charge if you wish to include
>unlimited "mobile to mobile" messaging. This includes SMS and MMS.
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.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:g9r703he2fmeahv
v3dfgjf23ir1s8j39bb@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 06:29:38 -0500, "JAW" < jawolife@nospamhotma
il.com>
> wrote in <eu0dn701rk9@enews5.newsguy.com>:
>
>
> 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.
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
Your information is not quite correct, perhaps misleading.
1.. You stated that "Mobile to Mobile is voice calling, not texting." When
in fact, the term can be used in both situations.
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.
JAW
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-23, 10:33 pm |
| On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:31:37 -0500, "JAW" < jawolife@nospamhotma
il.com>
wrote in <eu1dfe0j4r@enews4.newsguy.com>:
>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:g9r703he2fmeahv
v3dfgjf23ir1s8j39bb@
4ax.com...
[color=darkred]
>Your information is not quite correct, perhaps misleading.
I disagree.
> 1.. You stated that "Mobile to Mobile is voice calling, not texting." When
>in fact, the term can be used in both situations.
Mobile to mobile is commonly taken to be voice calling. It's a
redundant term for messaging.
> 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?
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:qmh803h70b03g1t
8hls9ubk1aa4fb87b3f@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:31:37 -0500, "JAW" < jawolife@nospamhotma
il.com>
> wrote in <eu1dfe0j4r@enews4.newsguy.com>:
>
>
>
>
> I disagree.
Of course you would -
Although your information can be quite helpful at times, you still remain
too arrogant to realize that you can actually be wrong.
>
>
> Mobile to mobile is commonly taken to be voice calling. It's a
> redundant term for messaging.
>
In a technical sense of actual word definition, mobile to mobile is
redundant as it is put. However, we are making points in a Cingular forum
and therefore their terminology would indicate a "within service provider"
expression. In case you do not understand, simply put would mean Cingular
(ATT) to Cingular (ATT)
>
> Apparently? Are you guessing, or do you have any actual evidence?
With all your outstanding knowledge, I would venture to say that you are
smart enough to enter an alternate zip code to see features in a particular
area. As a Cingular (with various other names) customer for over 10 years, I
know that their services and offers change from geographic location to
geographic location. For this reason, my original reply to your post
indicated in "my area". Andy S seems to be in an area offering the same as
mine (South Texas). As for needing evidence, just search Cingular's offers
in different areas. The United States is much larger than the Bay area.
Thanks for all your helpful input (not being sarcastic)
JAW
| |
|
| JAW wrote:
> 1.. You stated that "Mobile to Mobile is voice calling, not texting." When
> in fact, the term can be used in both situations.
> 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.
It's unlimited in-network text messaging for $5 more than your regular
text bundle, so it's $10 per month. However in some markets they have
cut that to $5, the same price as 200 text messages without unlimited
in-network. Verizon has no $5 message plan at all.
Comparing the four major carrier's text messaging rates:
In Network MTM Out of Network
ATTWS Sprnt T-Mob VZW ATTWS Sprnt T-Mob VZW
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
$5 0/Unlim 0 0 x 200 300 400 x
$10 Unlim Unlim 0 Unlim 200 Unlim 1000 500
$15 Unlim Unlim 400 Unlim 1500
$20 Unlim Unlim 1000 5000
$20 0 3000
$25 Unlim 3000
Verizon gets you a lot more messages than AT&T at each price point, but
Verizon lacks a $5 message plan. Sprint has the best deal for unlimited
text messaging, in and out of network, at only $10, while T-Mobile gives
you the most for a $5 upcharge.
I bet that AT&T will soon correct the disparity in their text messaging
rates for the higher number of out-of-network message plans, unless
Verizon decides to raise their own rates.
[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.]
| |
| xPosTech 2007-03-23, 10:33 pm |
| On 3/23/2007 5:24 PM, SMS wrote:
> JAW wrote:
>
>
> It's unlimited in-network text messaging for $5 more than your regular
> text bundle, so it's $10 per month. However in some markets they have
> cut that to $5, the same price as 200 text messages without unlimited
> in-network. Verizon has no $5 message plan at all.
>
> Comparing the four major carrier's text messaging rates:
>
> In Network MTM Out of Network
>
> ATTWS Sprnt T-Mob VZW ATTWS Sprnt T-Mob VZW
> ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
> $5 0/Unlim 0 0 x 200 300 400 x
> $10 Unlim Unlim 0 Unlim 200 Unlim 1000 500
> $15 Unlim Unlim 400 Unlim 1500
> $20 Unlim Unlim 1000 5000
> $20 0 3000
> $25 Unlim 3000
>
>
> Verizon gets you a lot more messages than AT&T at each price point, but
> Verizon lacks a $5 message plan. Sprint has the best deal for unlimited
> text messaging, in and out of network, at only $10, while T-Mobile gives
> you the most for a $5 upcharge.
>
> I bet that AT&T will soon correct the disparity in their text messaging
> rates for the higher number of out-of-network message plans, unless
> Verizon decides to raise their own rates.
>
>
>
>
> [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.]
Verizon is $5 for 250 text messages. $10 for unlimited IN and 500
additional (includes Pix/Flix messages).
--
Ted
I wasn't born in Texas but
I got back here as soon as I could
(Don't forget to take out the trash)
Good judgment comes from experience,
and experience comes from bad judgment.
--Fred Brook
| |
|
| xPosTech wrote:
> Verizon is $5 for 250 text messages. $10 for unlimited IN and 500
> additional (includes Pix/Flix messages).
Ah, now I see it.
It's not on their web site, and an insert in my most recent bill that
was promoting their new text messaging plans, no mention was made of a
$5 plan. But I found a press release that mentioned it. I guess that
they don't want to talk about the $5 plan much, since for most people
250 messages a month is more than enough.
Corrected chart:
In Network MTM Out of Network
ATTWS Sprnt T-Mob VZW ATTWS Sprnt T-Mob VZW
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
$5 0/Unlim* 0 0 0 200 300 400 250
$10 Unlim Unlim 0 Unlim 200 Unlim 1000 500
$15 Unlim x x Unlim 400 x Unlim 1500
$20 Unlim x x Unlim 1000 x x 5000
$20 0 x x x 3000 x x x
$25 Unlim x x x 3000 x x x
*Promotional price for unlimited in-network plus 200 out of network is
available in some AT&T Wireless markets.
| |
| Andy S 2007-03-23, 10:33 pm |
| >-- "JAW" < jawolife@nospamhotma
il.com> wrote in message
> news:eu1if90mqu@enew
s4.newsguy.com
> With all your outstanding knowledge, I would venture to say that you are
> smart enough to enter an alternate zip code to see features in a
> particular area. As a Cingular (with various other names) customer for
> over 10 years, I know that their services and offers change from
> geographic location to geographic location. For this reason, my original
> reply to your post indicated in "my area". Andy S seems to be in an area
> offering the same as mine (South Texas). As for needing evidence, just
> search Cingular's offers in different areas. The United States is much
> larger than the Bay area.
>
>
>
> Thanks for all your helpful input (not being sarcastic)
>
> JAW
>
>
Yes I am in an area, 14522 zip, that offers the Unlimited M2M txt.
As long as the M2M is from Cing/ATT to Cing/ATT.
--
Andrew D. Sisson
SonyEricsson W300i CINGULAR NATION SINCE MARCH 2006
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-03-23, 10:33 pm |
| 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?
>
to[color=darkred]
certain[color=darkre
d]
>
> 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.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-03-24, 4:33 am |
| 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 2007-03-24, 3:33 pm |
| 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!
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-03-24, 3:33 pm |
| 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.
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-24, 3:33 pm |
| On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:58:38 -0600, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <eu3osv$58n$4@aioe.org>:
>At 24 Mar 2007 16:52:51 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>
>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.
>
>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/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-03-24, 3:33 pm |
| In article <eu3osv$58n$4@aioe.org>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 24 Mar 2007 16:52:51 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>
> 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.
Nice, concise, and complete.
Thank you.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-03-24, 3:33 pm |
| In article < l3qa03hgk4u9la7fp7po
ans89jh2qb2pbr@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
Ohmigod, I never thought such irony was possible.
Navas, do you have ANY clue what you just wrote? And how utterly and
absolutely it applies to YOU?
Face it: you got caught (yet again!) being WRONG, and you so cannot
stand that, you would say and do anything to try to twist it into being
someone else's fault.
| |
| xPosTech 2007-03-25, 4:33 am |
| On 3/24/2007 1:21 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article < l3qa03hgk4u9la7fp7po
ans89jh2qb2pbr@4ax.com>,
> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
> Ohmigod, I never thought such irony was possible.
>
> Navas, do you have ANY clue what you just wrote? And how utterly and
> absolutely it applies to YOU?
>
> Face it: you got caught (yet again!) being WRONG, and you so cannot
> stand that, you would say and do anything to try to twist it into being
> someone else's fault.
>
A woman carrying twins awoke from an emergency c-section to find that
her brother had named them. Distraught, she asked him what their names
were. "The girl I named Deniece, and the boy I named Denephnew."
He also thought Denial was a river in Egypt.
--
Ted
I wasn't born in Texas but
I got back here as soon as I could
(Don't forget to take out the trash)
No matter how great and destructive your problems may seem
now, remember, you've probably only seen the tip of them.
| |
|
| Usually navas' brain is completely drained when he uses the word
"childish",or phase "grow up".
In article <elmop-59651B. 14211324032007@nntp9
.usenetserver.com>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article < l3qa03hgk4u9la7fp7po
ans89jh2qb2pbr@4ax.com>,
> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
> Ohmigod, I never thought such irony was possible.
>
> Navas, do you have ANY clue what you just wrote? And how utterly and
> absolutely it applies to YOU?
>
> Face it: you got caught (yet again!) being WRONG, and you so cannot
> stand that, you would say and do anything to try to twist it into being
> someone else's fault.
>
| |
|
| Kevin Weaver wrote:
>
>
> John Navas wrote:
>
> Which is a rip off. Why spend 10.00 a month when you can talk for free.
> It cost's them less to have you use texting then voice.
Of course you also have to consider the fact that Cingular does _not_
have unlimited texting for $10 per month. Unless it's yet another
service available only to one person in the United States, but it's
probably just another lie.
Not only does Cingular not offer an unlimited texting plan, their rates
for texting, that include texting to non-Cingular customers, are the
highest of any of the four major carriers.
Here are the text messaging rates from the top four carriers:
In Network MTM Out of Network
ATTWS Sprnt T-Mob VZW ATTWS Sprnt T-Mob VZW
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
$5 0/Unlim* 0 0 0 200 300 400 250
$10 Unlim Unlim 0 Unlim 200 Unlim 1000 500
$15 Unlim x x Unlim 400 x Unlim 1500
$20 Unlim x x Unlim 1000 x x 5000
$20 0 x x x 3000 x x x
$25 Unlim x x x 3000 x x x
*Promotional price for unlimited in-network plus 200 out of network is
available in some AT&T Wireless markets.
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.
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-25, 10:33 pm |
| On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 08:41:03 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 46069810$0$27236$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>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/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Scott 2007-03-25, 10:33 pm |
| John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:t0be035tv6clcaq
mvij0odbb69epn86vjj@
4ax.com:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 08:41:03 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 46069810$0$27236$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
> 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 < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
> news:t0be035tv6clcaq
mvij0odbb69epn86vjj@
4ax.com:
>
>
> 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!
| |
| Scott 2007-03-25, 10:33 pm |
| SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
news:46073615$0$2724
6$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> Scott wrote:
>
> 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!
>
>
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.
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-25, 10:33 pm |
| On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:55:14 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 46073615$0$27246$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>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.
| |
| Michael Paris 2007-03-26, 10:33 pm |
|
> 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! :-)
| |
| Scott 2007-03-26, 10:33 pm |
| "Michael Paris" <mparis27@comcast.net> wrote in news:DeKdnUs6
_OuhH5XbnZ2dnUVZ_s2v
nZ2d@comcast.com:
>
>
> 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.
| |
|
| Michael Paris wrote:
>
>
> I see you don't have High School and Jr. HS students in your family! :-)
LOL, I do. I told my daughter that she was welcome to use her own money
to buy a fancy phone and pay for the monthly charges. She wisely decided
to stick with the parent provided PagePlus service and basic tri-mode
camera phone. Amusingly, on some school trips and athletic events at
away games, she's one of the few kids with a phone that has coverage, so
her phone gets borrowed a lot. I'll be picking her up from some event
and I have to wait while her teammates use her phone to call their parents.
I told her that she should write a report for the school paper on cell
phone coverage and cost, since so few parents and students are aware of
the low cost providers like PagePlus.
As to texting, her friends send a lot of e-mails, but texting isn't that
popular. The school doesn't allow students to use their phones during
school, only after school, and they have so much homework and so many
extra-curricular activities, that there's not a lot of time after school
for such nonsense either.
Did you see Disney's "High School Musical" movie? There's a good section
about cell phones in there.
In any case, I doubt if even high school and junior high school students
could send 165 text messages per day, but I guess it's possible when
you're sending one message to a bunch of people at once.
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-27, 4:33 am |
| On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:32:24 -0400, "Michael Paris"
<mparis27@comcast.net> wrote in
< DeKdnUs6_OuhH5XbnZ2d
nUVZ_s2vnZ2d@comcast
.com>:
>
>I see you don't have High School and Jr. HS students in your family! :-)
I do, and avoided any problems by using MetroPCS. Even so, the number
of text messages per month has been well under 3000.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-03-27, 7:33 am |
| In article < lc7h03ponoj31p1e52rf
c6scofqrdf74hd@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> I do
He didn't mean the ones you were stalking on the street and/or holding
in your basement.
|
|
|
|
|