Why do the smartphones cost different depending on data bucket? Each device gets the same unlimited voice/messaging. Each device pools from same "shared data". Why doest it cost more for smaller data buckets? Each phone device should be the same price ($30) regardless of phone type (smart/basic) or data bucket. They are double charging anyone who gets the 1,4, or 6GB bucket.
Why charge for tablets? I already paid for the data. The tablet is not making phone calls or sending out text messages, so why double charge me for the data? $10/month for the privilege of bending over and taking it!
Who needs all these minutes and text messages anyways? Most customers are turning away from using minutes and messaging. So now AT$T and Veri$on roll out plans that "look cheap". However for anyone who rarely talks/messages, it's expensive.
Where's the shared data plan with shared limited minutes and shared limited messaging?
This is what I want:
Pay x$ per shared minute
Pay y$ per shared message
Pay z$ per shared GB of data
Pay 0$ per device (I'm paying for each shared minute, shared message, shared GB)
My final question was alway the case with Veri$on and AT$T: Why not offer an unsubsidized rate? If I bought my phone myself, I would be stupid to ever pay for Veri$on or AT$T. So why, after my contract is up, do they charge the same expensive "subsidized" rate?
Preemptive response: I know you currently have the option of staying with your current plan. However eventually that option won't be there. AT$T and Veri$on is moving into an era of expensive forced minutes/messages.
In my opinion, I don't think anyone will be seeing metered voice minutes or text messages, going forward. For one thing, building up and tearing down voice channels stopped being a negative technological and cost issue likely sometime around 2g/3g deployment. Secondly, text messages were *never* any sort of cost issue, because they always use the device's maintenance channel, which costs the carrier somewhere in the neighborhood of $0.000001/message (I'm exaggerating; I don't know the actual costs, but it can't be that expensive!).
What's the key point that is the make-or-break issue for cellular networks? Data. They (the telcos) have to make money with it, come hell or high water. So, you see what they offer.
Secondly, regarding the cost of devices, phones are expensive. I've heard AT&T wants to increase the "upgrade tax" from $18/line to $36/line, so you're effectively paying upwards of $100 just for the ability to upgrade two phone lines (in my case). I intend to push for as much of a credit as possible against this when we upgrade.
Now, an iPad device is, by definition, cheaper than an iPhone, certainly on an out of contract basis. Notice that you are eating the entire cost of the iPad; AT&T/VZ/whomever are providing the basic communication service (if not wi-fi), and you and I both know they're not leaving any money on the proverbial table, so they're going to charge *something* to have the thing on their network. The only "exception" I see to not pay $10/month for dedicated iPad cellular service is the soon-to-be-included tethering option on iPhones. This would seem to do away with the need to have a dedicated iPad account.
Thirdly, why is AT&T still charging out the wazzoo for data, even if you pay upwards of $800 for an unsubsidized iPhone? Because the only reason they care about the actual cost of the device is if they have to subsidize it, and you still have to pay the "upgrade tax," because that socializes (heh) the subsidization across all users. Further, subsidization of devices has zero to do with data usage. In this respect, all they care about is the fact that your device is taking up spectrum space on their towers. Therefore, you get the same pricing treatment as anyone else does.
It's all data from here on out. We'll see how the entire market reacts to these new pricing plans from the virtual duopoly we call AT&T and Verizon.
