iPhone - shared data plans and ric-dick-ulous texting plans AT&T

nzmc36

macrumors member
Original poster
Jun 5, 2006
88
0
Gainesville FL
Sorry if this has been done a 1000 times, but I am so pleased with iMessaging and hoping it will significantly cut into AT&T's profits.

$20 a month for texting is just madness. Okay, maybe for those texting 1000's of times a month, but for me, it's a tool to contact people without a call - quickly. I know the cell phone companies are just laughing at the profits. It wouldn't surprise me if they get fined (extensively) for price fixing...

I want to set up a new phone (2) with the family and the only texting option is $20 a month - blah. I was hoping with the new share data plans it might help, but it seems all plans are angled at pushing everyone into high data plans that a very expensive, more correctly - are over priced.

2 iPhones (without hardware charges) at minimum rates (new shared plans) - with texting (x2) is running at $170 a month. If I wanted 2 base phones on top of that for the kids add another $110 - total $280 as month... oh... and add the tax's = nuts.


It seems to be cheaper to set up the other phone totally independently - without the so called 'saving' of shared data (again) blah. Surely it wouldn't be that difficult to set up a plan for folks that don't need to talk or text all day and be able to share data without it costing an arm and a leg.

Does this seem crazy to anyone else?

Excuse the rant ... pete
 

barkomatic

macrumors 601
Aug 8, 2008
4,043
1,822
Manhattan
AT&T knew that iMessage was coming and that is probably why they eliminated the cheaper capped messaging plans. I was grandfathered in the $15 1500 text message plan and I'm keeping it since most of my friends also have iPhones. Since iMessage, I haven't broken 500 texts and I wish I would have downgraded to the 1000 text message/$10 plan when I could.

It's cheaper to not use the shared data plan unless you've got a large number of smartphones and devices to connect. At least AT&T still offers the individual plans.
 

Want300

macrumors 65816
Oct 12, 2011
1,194
2
St. Louis, MO
AT&T knew that iMessage was coming and that is probably why they eliminated the cheaper capped messaging plans. I was grandfathered in the $15 1500 text message plan and I'm keeping it since most of my friends also have iPhones. Since iMessage, I haven't broken 500 texts and I wish I would have downgraded to the 1000 text message/$10 plan when I could.

It's cheaper to not use the shared data plan unless you've got a large number of smartphones and devices to connect. At least AT&T still offers the individual plans.
I wish I would have done that as well. I wonder if I can just get rid of my texting plan all together before the shared data stuff comes at the end of the month.

Can someone give me a link to a thread or a post that explains Google Voice?
 

Furifo

macrumors 6502
Jun 1, 2010
276
5
Cost of living in the UK is high but it is at times like these when I REALLY appreciate the pricing plans of UK networks. Here's what I'm on:
£13/month (equivalent of around $21):
- 300 minutes
- Unlimited texts
- Unlimited data (I get around 5-7mbps usually)

Comparitively speaking, it seems that plans are REALLY expensive in the US for most of you guys :(

If all of your most frequent contacts get data, could you not rely on iMessages and services such as Whatsapp to cater for your messaging needs allowing you to eliminate the need to pay a ridiculous $20/month extra.
 

Spectrum Abuser

macrumors 65816
Aug 27, 2011
1,377
31
Cost of living in the UK is high but it is at times like these when I REALLY appreciate the pricing plans of UK networks. Here's what I'm on:
£13/month (equivalent of around $21):
- 300 minutes
- Unlimited texts
- Unlimited data (I get around 5-7mbps usually)

Comparitively speaking, it seems that plans are REALLY expensive in the US for most of you guys :(
Comparatively speaking the United States dwarfs the United Kingdom in land size. The carrers have to ensure that the majority of the continental United States is covered if they wish to maintain their 'Nation-wide' status. Therefor the cost to maintain these networks goes up. We do have our fair share of 'budget' carriers, though. It's just that y'all across the pond don't hear about them as much.
 

KidStallyn

macrumors 6502
Mar 6, 2008
412
0
I'll say this. If ATT goes the route of Verizon, and eliminates grandfathering unlimited data, my entire Family will be switching over to Sprint. I've already looked at their plan, and I can get a 1500 shared minute plan for 4 iPhones that has unlimited data for $169/month. I pay $166/month for two iPhones (one unlimited data, the other 200MB/month) and two other phones that don't even have data. I'll have to wait until next summer to get a phone, but I've alo heard that Sprint will pay your ETF fee to get your business. That happens, FU ATT, hello sprint!
 

Furifo

macrumors 6502
Jun 1, 2010
276
5
Comparatively speaking the United States dwarfs the United Kingdom in land size. The carrers have to ensure that the majority of the continental United States is covered if they wish to maintain their 'Nation-wide' status. Therefor the cost to maintain these networks goes up. We do have our fair share of 'budget' carriers, though. It's just that y'all across the pond don't hear about them as much.
That is true - the UK is, for the most part, a nice place to live but it is very small compared to the states - I could travel across the UK in a day. I hadn't considered the fact that major US carriers have to spend large sums of money to provide coverage throughout the states and I understand why your prices are much higher than ours.

Having said that, pricing plans do seem to be quite inflated in the US. It seems US carriers are increasing their profits at the cost of customer satisfaction.
 

mattopotamus

macrumors G5
Jun 12, 2012
13,285
3,432
That is true - the UK is, for the most part, a nice place to live but it is very small compared to the states - I could travel across the UK in a day. I hadn't considered the fact that major US carriers have to spend large sums of money to provide coverage throughout the states and I understand why your prices are much higher than ours.

Having said that, pricing plans do seem to be quite inflated in the US. It seems US carriers are increasing their profits at the cost of customer satisfaction.
it is no secret that in the US we are raped by internet, tv, and cell phone providers. Between those 3 most Single people are paying almost $250, add a few family members into the mix and it only increases with each phone.
 

nzmc36

macrumors member
Original poster
Jun 5, 2006
88
0
Gainesville FL
Really..?

You could proably argue your way into the $10 txt option
We'll I'll give that a try, hadn't thought to negotiate with them. Been using AT&T for quite a few years so they might be reasonable if I suggest how likable the folk are at Verizon :)
 

sakau2007

macrumors 6502
Oct 12, 2011
484
2
lol @ people who think prices are set by the cost to the provider.

Prices are set by what the market will pay. That is all. If the market won't pay enough for the supplier to make a profit, the product will cease to exist.

This has been a free economics lesson. I hope you learned a lot.
 

Cougarcat

macrumors 604
Sep 19, 2003
7,766
2,545
Comparatively speaking the United States dwarfs the United Kingdom in land size. The carrers have to ensure that the majority of the continental United States is covered if they wish to maintain their 'Nation-wide' status.
I used to believe this, but there are some European countries such as Finland with lower population density than the US, yet their plans are not as horrendous.
 

brendu

macrumors 68020
Apr 23, 2009
2,414
2,256
USA
Comparatively speaking the United States dwarfs the United Kingdom in land size. The carrers have to ensure that the majority of the continental United States is covered if they wish to maintain their 'Nation-wide' status. Therefor the cost to maintain these networks goes up. We do have our fair share of 'budget' carriers, though. It's just that y'all across the pond don't hear about them as much.
I dont buy that argument. The UK has a population of roughly 62,000,000 People while the USA has over 300,000,000. AT&T has more subscribers so they make more money than the UK telecoms, providing them the cash needed to update their infrastructure. They (AT&T, Verizon) do not NEED to charge us the ridiculous sums for texting, they chose to because they know we will pay. Its sad.
 

nzmc36

macrumors member
Original poster
Jun 5, 2006
88
0
Gainesville FL
hmmmm

lol @ people who think prices are set by the cost to the provider.

Prices are set by what the market will pay. That is all. If the market won't pay enough for the supplier to make a profit, the product will cease to exist.

This has been a free economics lesson. I hope you learned a lot.
I do agree, tho' a lesson in free market is not needed. Until consumers rebel we are stuck getting shafted with heavy pricing. $20 for texts is gouging - plain and simple. Unfortunately the phone has become a national (universal) staple so odds are low for any sort of meaningful reduction.

The folks here don't shift off prices unless there is a error made in accounting, otherwise - if it's an iPhone they a very very tough to shift. Having said that buying a new 'hot of the press' phone is absolutely the worst (meaning near futile) time to negotiate.
 

brendu

macrumors 68020
Apr 23, 2009
2,414
2,256
USA
I do agree, tho' a lesson in free market is not needed. Until consumers rebel we are stuck getting shafted with heavy pricing. $20 for texts is gouging - plain and simple. Unfortunately the phone has become a national (universal) staple so odds are low for any sort of meaningful reduction.

The folks here don't shift off prices unless there is a error made in accounting, otherwise - if it's an iPhone they a very very tough to shift. Having said that buying a new 'hot of the press' phone is absolutely the worst (meaning near futile) time to negotiate.
I plan on being one of those ditching AT&T if I can afford an unlocked new iPhone, or if I decide I can stay with my iPhone 4 a bit longer. I am going to take my business to T-Mobile where their plans are at least less ridiculous. Hopefully by the time the new iPhone comes out and my AT&T contract is up T-Mobile's refarming efforts will be completed in my area and I wont be stuck on edge.
 

Technarchy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2012
6,753
4,885
Strangely enough, the new plan is a 100% lateral move in terms of total price and service.

Unlimited talk is meaningless to me with free mobile to mobile, and I already have unlimted text.
 

cableguy619

macrumors 6502
Jul 4, 2010
269
0
Currently on sprint with corp discount, 4 smart phones, paying an extra 10 dollars per phone for premium wimax(JOKE) which doesnt exist I currently pay 227.00


Priced up at 10 gigs under ATT(considering we hover about 6 gigs usage a moth) we have alot of hot spots 4 smart phones without corp discount will cost me 240.. SO I am assuming with my corp discount it will put me right back where I currently at or a few bucks more for a service that works... wish I never left ATT in the 1st place...

So overall not so bad for me
 

cableguy619

macrumors 6502
Jul 4, 2010
269
0
Funny I price dout the plans currently and it would be 239.00 not shared with everyone having 3 gigs to use. So 10 gigs shared looks to be a winner for me
 

Spectrum Abuser

macrumors 65816
Aug 27, 2011
1,377
31
I dont buy that argument. The UK has a population of roughly 62,000,000 People while the USA has over 300,000,000. AT&T has more subscribers so they make more money than the UK telecoms, providing them the cash needed to update their infrastructure. They (AT&T, Verizon) do not NEED to charge us the ridiculous sums for texting, they chose to because they know we will pay. Its sad.
It's all about population density. If you can cover five hundred residents with a single cellphone tower versus covering one hundred residents you'll make more post investment with the first option. Laying mile after mile of fiber cable to connect and operate thousands of cell sites is a heavy financial burden. Joe the farmer expects the same reliable connection in the middle of nowhere that Bob the office worker receives in the middle of New York City and thus infrastructure must be put in place.

European carriers provide cheaper rates than our American carriers, but our American carriers are rolling out the next generation of connectivity years before their counterparts. We're paying a pretty penny for nation wide service and a step up on other Countries.

EDIT: Judging from the posts in this thread it sounds like a bunch of people sugar coating the words 'I don't want to pay for a smartphone, but I still want the smartphone'. There's this great system called Capitalism in which you aim to provide quality service at a profitable revenue model. Could the rates be lower? Probably. Why should the carriers lower the price if they're doing plenty of business with the current pricing, though? That would be shooting themselves in the foot.

And suing the carriers for charging 'too much' for texting is ridiculous! They didn't force you to use their service now did they? If you don't want to pay/can't afford to pay for the service then cancel or don't get it. Living outside of ones means is partially what got America in the recession it's current residing in.
 
Last edited:

Fernandez21

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2010
4,566
2,782
Sorry if this has been done a 1000 times, but I am so pleased with iMessaging and hoping it will significantly cut into AT&T's profits.

$20 a month for texting is just madness. Okay, maybe for those texting 1000's of times a month, but for me, it's a tool to contact people without a call - quickly. I know the cell phone companies are just laughing at the profits. It wouldn't surprise me if they get fined (extensively) for price fixing...

I want to set up a new phone (2) with the family and the only texting option is $20 a month - blah. I was hoping with the new share data plans it might help, but it seems all plans are angled at pushing everyone into high data plans that a very expensive, more correctly - are over priced.

2 iPhones (without hardware charges) at minimum rates (new shared plans) - with texting (x2) is running at $170 a month. If I wanted 2 base phones on top of that for the kids add another $110 - total $280 as month... oh... and add the tax's = nuts.


It seems to be cheaper to set up the other phone totally independently - without the so called 'saving' of shared data (again) blah. Surely it wouldn't be that difficult to set up a plan for folks that don't need to talk or text all day and be able to share data without it costing an arm and a leg.

Does this seem crazy to anyone else?

Excuse the rant ... pete
Unlimited texting is included on all lines with the new data share plans, and there is a family texting plan available for $30 which covers all lines and includes free mobile to any mobile across carriers. While agree its still a ripoff, it's not as bad as you think it is.
 

brendu

macrumors 68020
Apr 23, 2009
2,414
2,256
USA
It's all about population density. If you can cover five hundred residents with a single cellphone tower versus covering one hundred residents you'll make more post investment with the first option. Laying mile after mile of fiber cable to connect and operate thousands of cell sites is a heavy financial burden. Joe the farmer expects the same reliable connection in the middle of nowhere that Bob the office worker receives in the middle of New York City and thus infrastructure must be put in place.

European carriers provide cheaper rates than our American carriers, but our American carriers are rolling out the next generation of connectivity years before their counterparts. We're paying a pretty penny for nation wide service and a step up on other Countries.

EDIT: Judging from the posts in this thread it sounds like a bunch of people sugar coating the words 'I don't want to pay for a smartphone, but I still want the smartphone'. There's this great system called Capitalism in which you aim to provide quality service at a profitable revenue model. Could the rates be lower? Probably. Why should the carriers lower the price if they're doing plenty of business with the current pricing, though? That would be shooting themselves in the foot.

And suing the carriers for charging 'too much' for texting is ridiculous! They didn't force you to use their service now did they? If you don't want to pay/can't afford to pay for the service then cancel or don't get it. Living outside of ones means is partially what got America in the recession it's current residing in.
Great post and good point on the rural areas and high costs of adding more towers there. My issue is mostly with the way AT&T has been changing all their plans lately to force users to pay more money for services they will not use and not offering a more practical alternative anymore. Why get rid of 2GB data plan when it works perfectly for me? I can afford my plan but don't like the idea of charging customers for things they do not need and not offering an alternative.