|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > January 2008 > AT&T Now Offers SIM Card Sans Phone - Greed?
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 Now Offers SIM Card Sans Phone - Greed?
|
|
|
| AT&T Now Offers SIM Card Sans Phone
posted Sunday, 11:00 PM by Eric M. Zeman
AT&T has made SIM cards available on its web site that can be
purchased without a handset. The price of the SIM card is $5 after a
rebate, but still requires a two-year contract unless you choose a pre-
paid option. It can be used with an existing or other unlocked
handset.
--
Do you think this is a good idea or just plain Verizon like greed when
AT&T snaps you into another two year contract for buying a mere SIM? I
thought AT&T promised to stop stuff like that?
One person noted ...
You SHOULD NOT sign a two year contract unless 1 of 2 reasons pop up:
1: Free Phone, or cheaper phone.
2: Promotional Plan
Don't you agree?
| |
| Kevin Weaver 2008-01-22, 4:33 am |
| "4phun" <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a5303cf0-dbe4-42ef-a818- d09a7de01817@q39g200
0hsf.googlegroups.com...
> AT&T Now Offers SIM Card Sans Phone
> posted Sunday, 11:00 PM by Eric M. Zeman
>
> AT&T has made SIM cards available on its web site that can be
> purchased without a handset. The price of the SIM card is $5 after a
> rebate, but still requires a two-year contract unless you choose a pre-
> paid option. It can be used with an existing or other unlocked
> handset.
>
> --
>
> Do you think this is a good idea or just plain Verizon like greed when
> AT&T snaps you into another two year contract for buying a mere SIM? I
> thought AT&T promised to stop stuff like that?
>
> One person noted ...
> You SHOULD NOT sign a two year contract unless 1 of 2 reasons pop up:
>
> 1: Free Phone, or cheaper phone.
> 2: Promotional Plan
>
> Don't you agree?
Being there is no discount on the iPhone, then this means don't buy an
iPhone till,
(See above)
1. Free iphone or when apple lowers the price. (The already lower price does
not count)
2. There is no iPhone Promo price.
| |
| Anon E. Muss 2008-01-22, 10:33 am |
| On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:05:35 GMT, "Kevin Weaver"
< kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
[color=darkred]
>"4phun" <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:a5303cf0-dbe4-42ef-a818- d09a7de01817@q39g200
0hsf.googlegroups.com...
Go to the website and look at the charges.:
List price is $10.00, with 2-year contract it is $5.00 after rebate.
If you want the 2-year contract, pay the $5.00; if you want no
contract, pay the $10.00.
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2008-01-22, 10:33 am |
| On 2008-01-22, Anon E Muss <anonymous@example.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:05:35 GMT, "Kevin Weaver"
>< kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> Go to the website and look at the charges.:
>
> List price is $10.00, with 2-year contract it is $5.00 after rebate.
> If you want the 2-year contract, pay the $5.00; if you want no
> contract, pay the $10.00.
Try to buy it like that. After you select the SIM you'll next be asked
to choose a plan for the SIM. All the plans have 2 year contract terms.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
|
| 4phun wrote:
> Do you think this is a good idea or just plain Verizon like greed when
> AT&T snaps you into another two year contract for buying a mere SIM? I
> thought AT&T promised to stop stuff like that?
I think that it's AT&T testing to see how many customers are dumb enough
to pay $5 for a SIM when you can get a phone with a SIM for free, then
sell the new phone on CraigsList or eBay for $50 or so.
It's like when they charge more for naked DSL than basic metered
landline service plus DSL (at least for the introductory year).
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2008-01-22, 10:33 am |
| On 2008-01-22, 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you think this is a good idea or just plain Verizon like greed when
> AT&T snaps you into another two year contract for buying a mere SIM? I
> thought AT&T promised to stop stuff like that?
The only thing new about this is that they are offering the SIM on
the web site. I bought service at an AT&T store and, while I have
two lines of service, I only bought one phone, and I only bought
that after a long discussion about why it was that I had to take
a 2 year contract even if I didn't get discounted phones.
I'd point out that Verizon has always had a 1 year contract option
if you take $50 less equipment discount, which I assume is also what
you'd get if you brought your own phone when you took a new line of
service. AT&T's greed is its own.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
|
| Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> I'd point out that Verizon has always had a 1 year contract option
> if you take $50 less equipment discount, which I assume is also what
> you'd get if you brought your own phone when you took a new line of
> service. AT&T's greed is its own.
I think that some sort of contract is reasonable even if you bring your
own equipment. The carrier does have some expense in setting up a new
account and doesn't want people terminating service soon after
establishing it. Two years is ridiculously long if you're not getting a
phone subsidy, and even one year is pushing it. If they insist on a 2
year contract when you buy a SIM, then they should give you a $50 credit
on your account (though the "free" GSM phones cost the carrier well
under $50).
With the current prepaid deals, many consumers would be better off with
no contract at all. I.e. you can get PagePlus for as little as
5.3¢/minute, with text messages as low as 3.5¢ each. $40/month seems to
be the lowest base rate these days from any carrier, which would provide
750 anytime minutes on PagePlus. No ridiculous overage charges either.
However no free nights and weekends.
| |
| John Navas 2008-01-22, 3:33 pm |
| On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:31:18 -0800 (PST), 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com>
wrote in
<a5303cf0-dbe4-42ef-a818- d09a7de01817@q39g200
0hsf.googlegroups.com>:
>AT&T Now Offers SIM Card Sans Phone
> posted Sunday, 11:00 PM by Eric M. Zeman
>
>AT&T has made SIM cards available on its web site that can be
>purchased without a handset. The price of the SIM card is $5 after a
>rebate, but still requires a two-year contract unless you choose a pre-
>paid option. It can be used with an existing or other unlocked
>handset.
AT&T/Cingular has long offered SIM-only service, and I've not had a
problem getting a shorter term when I've asked for it.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
| |
| John Navas 2008-01-22, 3:33 pm |
| On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:23:33 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 479617e8$0$84188$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>4phun wrote:
>
>
>I think that it's AT&T testing to see how many customers are dumb enough
>to pay $5 for a SIM when you can get a phone with a SIM for free, then
>sell the new phone on CraigsList or eBay for $50 or so.
>
>It's like when they charge more for naked DSL than basic metered
>landline service plus DSL (at least for the introductory year).
AT&T is actually tested to see how many are dumb enough to sign up for
2-year terms without any real incentive to do so.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
| |
| John Navas 2008-01-22, 3:33 pm |
| On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:38:05 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 47962961$0$84165$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
>
>I think that some sort of contract is reasonable even if you bring your
>own equipment. The carrier does have some expense in setting up a new
>account and doesn't want people terminating service soon after
>establishing it. ...
That's what the activation fee is for. Doh!
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
| |
| Todd Allcock 2008-01-22, 3:33 pm |
| At 22 Jan 2008 09:38:05 -0800 SMS wrote:
> I think that some sort of contract is reasonable even if you bring
> your own equipment. The carrier does have some expense in setting
> up a new account and doesn't want people terminating service soon
> after establishing it.
I disagree- the setup expenses are what the "activation fee" is suppos=
edly
for. VoIP providers manage to sign people up for short terms without
contracts (or even activation fees in many cases!) and they've got hig=
her
churn rates than cellular companies. Cell companies also don't seem t=
o
have a problem siging up a prepaid customer for short periods- they sh=
ould
be perfectly willing to risk a short term $40+/month customer if they'=
re
willing to risk an $8/month prepaid customer. =20
> Two years is ridiculously long if you're not getting a phone subsidy=
,
Two years is ridiculously long anyway. Particularly when that second =
year
only nets you another $50 off the price of a phone. How is the first =
year
worth $100-200 and the second only worth $50?
> and even one year is pushing it. If they insist on a 2 year contract=
> when you buy a SIM, then they should give you a $50 credit on your
> account (though the "free" GSM phones cost the carrier well under $5=
0).
Unlikely. According to RCR Wireless News (a trade mag), low-end US ma=
rket
phones still wholesale for $60+. The under-$50 barrier was only broke=
n
recently by Nokia and Motorola for monochrome-screen featureless phone=
s
designed for emerging nations (India, China, etc.)
=20
> With the current prepaid deals, many consumers would be better off
> with no contract at all. I.e. you can get PagePlus for as little as
> 5.3=A2/minute, with text messages as low as 3.5=A2 each. $40/month s=
eems
> to be the lowest base rate these days from any carrier, which would
> provide 750 anytime minutes on PagePlus. No ridiculous overage charg=
es
> either. However no free nights and weekends.
Or in-net calling, which many folks take advantage of. Otherwise I ag=
ree
with you- prepaid is a better deal for a large number of phone users, =
many
who probably avoid it based on stigma alone. =20
=20
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 22 Jan 2008 09:38:05 -0800 SMS wrote:
>
>
> I disagree- the setup expenses are what the "activation fee" is supposedly
> for. VoIP providers manage to sign people up for short terms without
> contracts (or even activation fees in many cases!) and they've got higher
> churn rates than cellular companies. Cell companies also don't seem to
> have a problem siging up a prepaid customer for short periods- they should
> be perfectly willing to risk a short term $40+/month customer if they're
> willing to risk an $8/month prepaid customer.
Activation fees are routinely waived, so the carrier probably justifies
the contract even with user-supplied equipment based on the cost of
adding a customer to their network.
> Unlikely. According to RCR Wireless News (a trade mag), low-end US market
> phones still wholesale for $60+. The under-$50 barrier was only broken
> recently by Nokia and Motorola for monochrome-screen featureless phones
> designed for emerging nations (India, China, etc.)
That's probably the average, not the lowest cost for a company as large
as AT&T. They're selling prepaid phones that can easily be unlocked for
under $50. I saw stories on RCR more than a year ago of $40 wholesale
for low-end phones.
> Or in-net calling, which many folks take advantage of. Otherwise I agree
> with you- prepaid is a better deal for a large number of phone users, many
> who probably avoid it based on stigma alone.
Hopefully that stigma is becoming less and less. I can tell you that
among seniors, including those that can afford postpaid, it seems to
have lost its stigma (at least in South Florida). I know several people
that have no credit or income problems, but that just don't want so many
recurring monthly fees for stuff they don't use a lot.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2008-01-22, 10:33 pm |
| At 22 Jan 2008 13:13:00 -0800 SMS wrote:
> Activation fees are routinely waived,
But probably not for month-to-month customers.
> so the carrier probably justifies the contract even with user-
> supplied equipment based on the cost of adding a customer to their
> network.
Perhaps- T-Mobile rolled out a contract-free plan back in October called
Flexpay. It's similar to a hybrid plan like AT&T's GoPhone, but let's you
choose from T-Mo's "real" plans with perks (free N&W, M2M, etc.) intact,
and all regular "add-ons" (like unlimited data) available.
> That's probably the average, not the lowest cost for a company
> as large as AT&T. They're selling prepaid phones that can easily
> be unlocked for under $50.
Yes, and selling them at a loss to encourage the purchase of prepaid minutes.
> I saw stories on RCR more than a year ago of $40 wholesale for low-end
phones.
Again, those were phones you and I will never see unless we go to India or
China! ;-)
> Hopefully that stigma is becoming less and less. I can tell you
> that among seniors, including those that can afford postpaid, it
> seems to have lost its stigma (at least in South Florida). I know
> several people that have no credit or income problems, but that
> just don't want so many recurring monthly fees for stuff they don't
> use a lot.
Agreed. Back when I was a Cingular dealer, I sold a lot of prepaid phones
to credit-worthy folks, most of whom were Seniors. I practically had to
strongarm some of them into accepting that prepaid didn't mean "deadbeat"
if their sons or daughters brought them in to shop. I even offered to
handle the refills for those who didn't want to deal with scratch-off cards
and VRUs. I kept a calendar and called my customers shortly before their
expiration date and topped them up either by credit card over the phone,
credit card number in my tickler file (at their option if they trusted me)
or by mailed check. (Keep in mind this was nearly a decade ago- web use in
general, particularly by Seniors was much lower than today! IIRC, Cingular
hadn't even set up an automated buy-by-phone option for prepaid airtime
yet.)
Those that I took care of this way took care of me in spades with word of
mouth and talk of the "cheap cell phone guy" spread amongst the local
seniors faster than talk of bladder problems and the high price of medicines.
;-)
Early in my prepaid-selling career I even secured a bunch of old closeout
Nokias that produced a fake dialtone. The seniors loved that one- you hit
"Talk" first then dialed the number, just their cordless phones at home.
| |
| John Navas 2008-01-22, 10:33 pm |
| On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:13:00 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 47965bbe$0$84194$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>Activation fees are routinely waived, so the carrier probably justifies
>the contract even with user-supplied equipment based on the cost of
>adding a customer to their network.
That makes absolutely no sense.
>
>That's probably the average, not the lowest cost for a company as large
>as AT&T. They're selling prepaid phones that can easily be unlocked for
>under $50. I saw stories on RCR more than a year ago of $40 wholesale
>for low-end phones.
Todd is correct.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
| |
| Anon E. Muss 2008-01-22, 10:33 pm |
| On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:09:23 GMT, Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
>On 2008-01-22, Anon E Muss <anonymous@example.org> wrote:
[snip]
>
>Try to buy it like that. After you select the SIM you'll next be asked
>to choose a plan for the SIM. All the plans have 2 year contract terms.
Nope.
See < http://tinyurl.com/24g5cc>.
| |
| Anon E. Muss 2008-01-22, 10:33 pm |
| On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:42:23 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:38:05 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>wrote in < 47962961$0$84165$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
>That's what the activation fee is for. Doh!
So you agree then that requiring a contract when you bring your own
equipment is unreasonable. Will wonders never cease? John makes the
right call for once!
| |
| Anon E. Muss 2008-01-22, 10:33 pm |
| On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:38:05 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
[snip]
>Two years is ridiculously long if you're not getting a phone subsidy,
>and even one year is pushing it.
[snip]
Two years is ridiculously long period -- particularly when the phones
comes with a one-year warranty and many phones (e.g., Blackbery)
aren't insurable thru AT&T.
If your Blackberry breaks between year one and two on a two-year
contract then you are hosed. I liked getting one-year contracts --
realizing that while I paid $50-$100 more than if I did a 2-yar
contract (and sometimes not getting a rebate) I had the peace of mind
knowing my phone was always under warranty and being able to upgrade
to the newest model Blackberry yearly.
| |
| John Navas 2008-01-22, 10:33 pm |
| On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:29:42 -0800, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
wrote in < fmucp3hab0o74hu5t8ic
buopp7cdf3nif8@4ax.com>:
>Two years is ridiculously long period -- particularly when the phones
>comes with a one-year warranty and many phones (e.g., Blackbery)
>aren't insurable thru AT&T.
>
>If your Blackberry breaks between year one and two on a two-year
>contract then you are hosed. ...
Not if you insure it someplace else.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
| |
| John Navas 2008-01-22, 10:33 pm |
| On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:22:25 -0800, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
wrote in < tjucp31foa3t84da1tfh
nqfqrsmgjp2b0b@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:42:23 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
[color=darkred]
>So you agree then that requiring a contract when you bring your own
>equipment is unreasonable. Will wonders never cease? John makes the
>right call for once!
That's been my position all along. Doh!
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
| |
|
| Anon E. Muss wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:09:23 GMT, Dennis Ferguson
> <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Nope.
>
> See < http://tinyurl.com/24g5cc>.
Well that's good news! Was this a response to the outcry, or was it just
a mistake on their web site?
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2008-01-22, 10:33 pm |
| On 2008-01-22, Anon E Muss <anonymous@example.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:09:23 GMT, Dennis Ferguson
><dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Nope.
>
> See < http://tinyurl.com/24g5cc>.
Got it. I see they fixed their web site by removing the SIM-only option
from the list (or at least it isn't where it was last time I tried).
Maybe they'll also get around to fixing their stores, or at least the
one I pass on the way home. I dropped in today and asked about getting
a new postpaid line of service, SIM-only without the phone, and they
said there was still a minimum 1 year contract. That's different than
it used to be, but still not what they're saying above.
They were quite pleasant in the store, though, much nicer than I remember
them being 3 years ago when I was last there, and very sorry they couldn't
help.
Dennis Ferguson
|
|
|
|
|