Carrier ATT Unlimited - Price increase starting Feb '16.

[Drag'nGT]

At the moment I'm not as bothered by the $5 price increase. I'm concerned about upgrading to the iPhone 7. I only want to renew my contract for 2 years and get the next iPhone 7 Plus for the 'on contract price.' I hate to say this but if I have to pay full price for an iPhone with no discount incentives from AT&T or VZW I'll probably switch to Android. You can get those with good specs for $300-400.

"But you aren't on a contract any more."
Who gives a ****! I've had this service for 10 or so years... I've had plenty of opportunities to move. I haven't. Give me the damn contract and sell me the phone.

 

[lordofthereef]

That requires me to give up my phone number though. Unable to do that.

Add a line and have them move the first number over. That's what I did.

 

[capathy21]

It's unbelievable that some people are complaining about a 5 dollar increase on a plan that is already a ridiculous deal. I just switched my wife to Verizon and her bill is going to be $122 a month for unlimited talk and text, and 6gb of data. Granted about 35 of that is for the device, but still. Some of you guys that are paying 60-70 dollars a month for unlimited data have got it made.

 

[Mlrollin91]

It's unbelievable that some people are complaining about a 5 dollar increase on a plan that is already a ridiculous deal. I just switched my wife to Verizon and her bill is going to be $122 a month for unlimited talk and text, and 6gb of data. Granted about 35 of that is for the device, but still. Some of you guys that are paying 60-70 dollars a month for unlimited data have got it made.

I personally don't think it's the $5 that is troublesome to me. It's the slippery slope that will follow. Verizon tested the waters at a $20 increase. I don't think it will be long until AT&T follows. For the additional monthly cost, AT&T and Verizon really should include tethering.

 

[capathy21]

I personally don't think it's the $5 that is troublesome to me. It's the slippery slope that will follow. Verizon tested the waters at a $20 increase. I don't think it will be long until AT&T follows. For the additional monthly cost, AT&T and Verizon really should include tethering.

I understand that point. I also believe that they will eventually phase out the old plans and get rid of unlimited.

 

[Mlrollin91]

I understand that point. I also believe that they will eventually phase out the old plans and get rid of unlimited.

Agreed, its only a matter of time at this point.

 

[C DM]

I personally don't think it's the $5 that is troublesome to me. It's the slippery slope that will follow. Verizon tested the waters at a $20 increase. I don't think it will be long until AT&T follows. For the additional monthly cost, AT&T and Verizon really should include tethering.

It's more amazing that they haven't been doing it all along while prices for most things and services have pretty much always been going up throughout the years.

 

[Mlrollin91]

It's more amazing that they haven't been doing it all along while prices for most things and services have pretty much always been going up throughout the years.

But I think now more than ever they want to get people off unlimited data because of net neutrality and having to up the data cap. So maybe they have thought about doing it, but couldn't justify it on their own ends. And now this is a way for them to say if you want more unlimited data, you have to pay for it.

 

[knownikko]

This is your grace period. Eventually the plan will just go away.

 

[Releck97]

For those under contract. They can likely discontinue for those who are not under contract and those who are would basically need to switch to something once their contract ends.

I believe this is not true. I have been an unlimited customer since day one. IIRC, the grandfather clause is in effect regardless of whether or not I am currently under contract.

 

[C DM]

I believe this is not true. I have been an unlimited customer since day one. IIRC, the grandfather clause is in effect regardless of whether or not I am currently under contract.

It is. I was saying that, as far as I understand it, if they wanted to, they could do it the way I described it at some point if they decided to no longer support some older product that is no longer offered.

 

[eyeseeyou]

just hike it up $10 and give us hotspot capabilities

 

[C DM]

just hike it up $10 and give us hotspot capabilities

The price increase isn't likely there to make that particular service more appealing or better or in a sense encourage the use of even more data (at even faster rates).

 

[imlynxy]

Apparently they can change prices under contract, which is what they're doing in this case.

No they cannot, it says that they may change the proce, but it doesn't state that you agree to continue the contract under that circumstances. In opposite part 1.3 of the contract is. lear that you have 30 days to dispute the contract.

 

[cousintim]

its only a matter of time at this point.

Everything is only a matter of time.

Unlimited data plans and two-year agreements are both a naturally decreasing share of AT&T's customers. It is quite happy with the mix and has expressed no interest in discontinuing either.

 

[aneftp]

Everything is only a matter of time.

Unlimited data plans and two-year agreements are both a naturally decreasing share of AT&T's customers. It is quite happy with the mix and has expressed no interest in discontinuing either.

Incorrect in my opinion.

Att and other carriers are still pushing "contracts". Except it's all about semanatics. I have owned stock in Verizon and att for quite a bit (mainly for its generous dividen payouts). But I read both companies financial outlook.

If you read att previous financial statement. They clearly love to brag that 60-70% of their customers are on "att Next". Call it what you want. But if it looks like a duck it's a duck.

A "financial contract" is still a "contract". Same as a "subsidy contract". People on contract mean recurring revenue. The facts are that its pure marketing saying "no contract". Facts are that consumers rarely pay financial contracts early especially no interest contracts.

 

[imlynxy]

Incorrect in my opinion.

Att and other carriers are still pushing "contracts". Except it's all about semanatics. I have owned stock in Verizon and att for quite a bit (mainly for its generous dividen payouts). But I read both companies financial outlook.

If you read att previous financial statement. They clearly love to brag that 60-70% of their customers are on "att Next". Call it what you want. But if it looks like a duck it's a duck.

A "financial contract" is still a "contract". Same as a "subsidy contract". People on contract mean recurring revenue. The facts are that its pure marketing saying "no contract". Facts are that consumers rarely pay financial contracts early especially no interest contracts.

I agree with you 100 percent. I posted the same idea a while ago here on the forum. It is very nice to see some sober ideas here.

 

[geoff5093]

At least with Verizon you had the option to get back under contract and avoid the $20 increase until your contract is over.

 

[aneftp]

At least with Verizon you had the option to get back under contract and avoid the $20 increase until your contract is over.

Sorta of true. But only locking in $30 unlimited using loopholes (forever method/bestbuy method etc).

So it's not like Verizon lets you publicly lock in the pricing. They really want the true unlimited LTE off their network. Cause of band 13 rule.

 

[ZipZap]

I personally don't think it's the $5 that is troublesome to me. It's the slippery slope that will follow. Verizon tested the waters at a $20 increase. I don't think it will be long until AT&T follows. For the additional monthly cost, AT&T and Verizon really should include tethering.

I think the hesitation is also about the truth of the "Unlimited" claim.