Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New plans aren't even better than Verizon's existing offerings. What is AT&T trying to do?

Old AT&T plans:
  • $5: 200 messages
  • $15: 1500 messages
  • $20: unlimited
  • $30: unlimited for all lines in family plan

New AT&T plans:
  • $10: 1000 messages
  • $20: unlimited
  • $30: unlimited for all lines in family plan

Existing Verizon plans:
  • $5: 250 messages
  • $10: 500 messages, unlimited between Verizon mobile numbers
  • $20: 5000 messages, unlimited between Verizon mobile numbers
  • $30: unlimited for all lines in family plan
 
Good thing they are allowing people to be grandfathered in. I have the 5 dollar for 200 texts plan right now. I'm not a heavy texter because I use Beejive on my phone 99% of the time for that purpose. I keep 200 around in case someone I'm conversing with doesn't have/use IM. I would hate to pay 10 dollars for something I would never use.
 
Loaner!

Why do people still crank out these huge piles of textmessages when they can write emails to their smartphone-carrying friends for free?

All my personal friends have iPhones, Crackberrys or HTC Android devices... The rest has Nokias with internet access.

I can understand up to 10 textmessages per month, but 1000??? C'mon...

vSpacken

Just cuz you don't have any friends to text don't mean the rest of us can't text all we want!

LOL
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

This isn't a rumor for this site. Who cares about AT&T. It has nothing to do with macs and nothing to do with the iphone
 
Isn't everything data on thier end?

I'm thinking these plans will be gone soon and there wont be minutes or sms or whatever.

You pay for X MB/GB of data to use as you seen fit between calls/text/web....

Am I wrong and voice is not data on thier end?

No, it isn't just data on the back end. Voice channels and data channels are quite separate. The carriers are moving to packet switched networks where everything is just data but that isn't even close yet. I believe that will happen once the transition to LTE is complete.

So for the moment, voice and data are in separate buckets. Further, SMS isn't in the data bucket, it's in the voice bucket. SMS standards predate the data networks now in use and SMS goes over the voice channels. That's the reason (other than increased profits) that text plans are separate from data plans.

Instant messaging clients look just like SMS for the user but IMs are data. Eventually IM clients will replace SMS but it's taking way too long.
 
You and others are obviously willing to pay a premium to own an iPhone. They build them fast enough for all of the people who are willing to pay these rates for data and text.

Apple makes a great phone in high demand.

That doesn’t excuse what the carriers do.
 
Capitalism at work. AT&T now has to compete with Verizon. Are the prices where I would like them to be? Of course not, but I'll very willingly take the extra texts for less money. :p
 
Trade Off

In the three years I have had my iPhone, I have maybe used data two or three times at the same time. Losing that is no big deal.

When you use your iPhone as just a phone/internet machine, then yeah it wouldn't be that well used. I tether (unfortunately) my iPhone though and can still get calls/texts while I'm browsing the Internet on my laptop using my phone's internet.

The coveted hotspot feature on Verizon's phone; does anyone know if the connection terminates when you get a call/text? That right there would be a huge deal-breaker for me. If I didn't have to tether (possibly ending that next month anyway depending on station assignment) I wouldn't care one bit about the dual talk-browse capability.
 
I've never used voice & data simultaneously, so I won't miss it, but I wonder, is Verizons new LTE network they're so excited about still limited in this way? Seems like they'd want to sort that out eventually.


As far as text goes, I don't text either. It actually annoys the hell out of me when people send me a message with all the urgency of a phone call but with the impersonality of an email. The worst of both worlds. It's buying all the awesomeness of a smartphone only to use it as a telegraph.

Even tho I never sent any, I got so many frickin texts, they annoyed the hell out of me, til I tried to get AT&T to cancel my iphones texting capabilityThey wouldn't. They just happily billed the hell out of me for rcving more than the limit, which got ridiculously expensive.

Sionara AT&T.
 
But the question remains...will ATT bring back unlimited data to be competitive with the V...An att wireless person I spoke with last week said he thought they would, but that's only his opinion, not based on any co. info..
 
Only in America?

Charging for texts is outdated and absurd. First, because phones can do actual voice these days, and second because we have the Internet. I refuse to pay for a text plan, and I do almost no texting at all. It’s more often trendy than useful or fun.

Without a plan, a minimal text exchange costs $1.20! That’s crazy in the Internet age. Typically a minimal exchange is at least 3 messages: you ask/say something, I reply, and you acknowledge. Each of those 3 gives .40 cents to the carrier (without a plan): the sender pays .20 and the recipient pays .20. That comes to $1.20 to tell me you might be a little late if your hair won’t dry. (Or more. And then there’s MMS!)

But I still don’t want a plan. If I average fewer than 50 texts per month (say, 60 one month, 40 the next) then I’m better off with no plan than paying $10. That’s WAY more texts than circumstances (like meetings or loud clubs) demand in a month. Beyond those specific needs, sending a ton of texts is just because you like doing it instead of calling/emailing/whatever. Which is great, but since it’s optional, I can protest by not paying for it. I’ve got better things to do with $120 per year than participate in an outdated fad :)

And luckily my friends quickly learned to email, call, AIM, Skype, Jabber, Facebook or FaceTime me instead! (Actually, some of them don’t have smartphones, and AIM me using SMS... but that’s their business! No cost to me. I can even reply.)

Seems crazy to be paying to receive text messages. Does anyone do that apart from America? Sms billing systems are awful in my experience. I don't think billing both sides is going to make them work any better.
 
Agreed. Mobile Internet—especially the kind where your connection isn’t lost when the phone rings!--is kind of like broadband: you really appreciate it once you use it a while.



I despise AT&T’s customer service and support (their coverage/reliability is fine for me) but THAT is something I use constantly. I’m constantly putting someone on speaker so I can look up a menu, or hours, or directions, or movie details, or Google some info. “Let me call you back” is a thing of the past for me :)

I consider Verizon the lesser of two evils—there are no “good” carriers in my view—which means while I WOULD like to switch, losing simultaneous data isn’t worth it.

Wow, amazing how different our experiences are....

ATT customer service is probably the #1 reason I stuck with them this time around.

Forgetting phone/service wars, I've never dealt with worse customer service than Verizon (except the time we canceled our home phone with vonage as a one off terrible experience), who I had for my cell 4-5 years ago and continue to use for my internet. One case I had was They skipped out on 2 installation appointments for internet which we had to call off work for and I wrote literally 6 emails to customer service without even an acknowledgment from them - no response beyond automated one.

Absolutely horrific to the point that there was no way my wife would suffer it again.

ATT on the other hand, has pretty much set the bar for what CS should be...

Crazy the difference in experience with the 2 companies between the two of us.
 
How does your cost increase? It says you can keep your $5/500 plan indefinitely, even through device upgrades. Nobody is going to force you into this new plan.

Does anybody have a 500 messages for $5 plan? My $5 plan only gives 200 messages -- did they change this?
 
Not a good way to win over people who don't use text messages much. I would be quite furious with them if they tried to take my $5 plan away. And I agree with everyone that the fees for text messaging are ridiculous. That aside, what they really needed to do was offer a plan which included 750-1000 messages for a mid-range price instead of gouging people who go over 200. And based on what nutmac wrote, they're clearly inferior plans to Verizon's.
 
New plans aren't even better than Verizon's existing offerings. What is AT&T trying to do?

Old AT&T plans:
  • $5: 200 messages
  • $15: 1500 messages
  • $20: unlimited
  • $30: unlimited for all lines in family plan

New AT&T plans:
  • $10: 1000 messages
  • $20: unlimited
  • $30: unlimited for all lines in family plan

Existing Verizon plans:
  • $5: 250 messages
  • $10: 500 messages, unlimited between Verizon mobile numbers
  • $20: 5000 messages, unlimited between Verizon mobile numbers
  • $30: unlimited for all lines in family plan

I don't see how you come up with that unless you assume a lot of texts to other Verizon numbers. For $30 you get unlimited family on either. For $20 you get unlimited on AT&T or 5000 on Verizon + unlimited to Verizon (so less texts). For $10 you get 1000 on AT&T or 500 on Verizon.

Obviously if you text a lot with other Verizon customers you are better off on Verizon. But otherwise, AT&T's new plans are better than Verizon's existing plans, except for the absence of a low-price plan.
 
New plans aren't even better than Verizon's existing offerings. What is AT&T trying to do?

Old AT&T plans:
  • $5: 200 messages
  • $15: 1500 messages
  • $20: unlimited
  • $30: unlimited for all lines in family plan

New AT&T plans:
  • $10: 1000 messages
  • $20: unlimited
  • $30: unlimited for all lines in family plan

Existing Verizon plans:
  • $5: 250 messages
  • $10: 500 messages, unlimited between Verizon mobile numbers
  • $20: 5000 messages, unlimited between Verizon mobile numbers
  • $30: unlimited for all lines in family plan

um...how is that not at the very min. on par with vzn?

I guess just for anyone who texts 500 or less per month, other than that segment of people, the ATT plans are on par I think.
 
Exactly, they could argue that it costs them a little here and there for operating the towers and allowing you to use that service, but nothing that would justify what they are charging now for texting plans. And I think texting is 160, twitter is 140.

I'm not defending any of the carriers, but texts are NOT free to the carrier. Think of it this way. A carrier projects it will cost $X to cover the US in towers (very simplified for this example) for coverage. The carrier then figures out how much per customer they need to make on average to cover the build out. For this example, lets say the average is $50/customer. How they get that average out of each customer varies. Some may charge $20 for voice and $30 for texting, while others may say $50 for voice but 'free' texting.

Texting only appears free because it piggy backs on the control signals, but texting would be just as useless as voice without coverage. Coverage cost money and is expensive - especially in the US. Add in the trend of people doing way more texting than talking and most providers moved to charging for texting to get to their average bill needed per customer.
 
In other words, AT&T is increasing their price.

Verizon already has a similar $5 text plan. Why couldn't AT&T just add this new plan in addition to the existing ones?

Because they are just as hungry as Verizon for money on a feature that costs them next to nothing to maintain.
 
Not a good way to win over people who don't use text messages much. I would be quite furious with them if they tried to take my $5 plan away. And I agree with everyone that the fees for text messaging are ridiculous. That aside, what they really needed to do was offer a plan which included 750-1000 messages for a mid-range price instead of gouging people who go over 200. And based on what nutmac wrote, they're clearly inferior plans to Verizon's.


They're not taking away the $5 plan from anyone. They're just not making it available to new subscribers.
 
Future Headlines

Feb 10: Verizon has the iPhone
Feb 11: Verizon's Network Sucks

(I can't take credit for this....it came from an editorial cartoon in the local paper)

I can't wait until someone puts 2 iPhones, side by side (ATT, Verizon) and does a speed test. Of course, they'd better use 2 Verizon iPhones in case someone calls the Verizon iPhone during the test.

Serious note: Anyone that relies on concurrent voice and data better do their homework before switching. Apps like Connect and WEBEX won't work on Verizon.
 
Even tho I never sent any, I got so many frickin texts, they annoyed the hell out of me, til I tried to get AT&T to cancel my iphones texting capabilityThey wouldn't. They just happily billed the hell out of me for rcving more than the limit, which got ridiculously expensive.

Sionara AT&T.

AT&T will block all texts for you. Try asking again.
 
New plans aren't even better than Verizon's existing offerings. What is AT&T trying to do?

Old AT&T plans:
  • $5: 200 messages
  • $15: 1500 messages
  • $20: unlimited
  • $30: unlimited for all lines in family plan

New AT&T plans:
  • $10: 1000 messages
  • $20: unlimited
  • $30: unlimited for all lines in family plan

Existing Verizon plans:
  • $5: 250 messages
  • $10: 500 messages, unlimited between Verizon mobile numbers
  • $20: 5000 messages, unlimited between Verizon mobile numbers
  • $30: unlimited for all lines in family plan

You forgot the $20 unlimited text on Verizon which you can bundle into a voice plan. Your options are $39.99 + $20 for 5000 messages or $59.99 for unlimited text and 450 minutes.
 
I'm not 100% positive about AT&T (I'm on Verizon), but I've always been under the impression that voice was treated differently from data, but I easily could be wrong. But my point is that text messages use an outrageously low amount of data transfer and the amount that carriers are charging feels completely unjustified for what it is costing them to offer the service (as bigwig says below, it costs them next to nothing to operate).

Exactly, they could argue that it costs them a little here and there for operating the towers and allowing you to use that service, but nothing that would justify what they are charging now for texting plans. And I think texting is 160, twitter is 140.

Texts are 140 bytes but that translates to 160 characters if you use the gsm character set.

There are more costs than just the data transfer. They need to handle billing ,data storage and retries for failures. Still, I'm sure there is plenty left over for profit.
 
It's not about vanity. It's a useful feature to have - talking on a bluetooth headset and being able to refer back to an email. Or look up a nearby resturant if you're meeting someone. Or plotting a route on GPS.

T-Mobile can do it, AT&T can do it, I assume Sprint can too - so why not VZ? It's a deliberate "feature" of their network, not an oversight. Maybe it's to assure voice QoS but somehow I doubt it as voice and data are different channels.

I think you misunderstood. What I mean about being vain is not using voice + data simultaneously, what I meant was so many people today think that everyone has the same needs & wants as them.

If you need voice + data simultaneously, go right ahead. If not, fine. It's the not understanding other people's needs that bugs me.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.