Verizon Introduces New Monthly Service Plans, Eliminating Smartphone Subsidies for New Customers

[BandH]

I switched from AT&T to T-Mobile last year and while I agree T-Mobile is a bargain, you get what you pay for. While the coverage is decent where I live (Silicon Valley), indoor coverage is often lacking and rural coverage (e.g., weekend road trips) is often horrible. And their billing system is really third class. Out of about 16 months I have been on T-Mobile, at least half had billing errors.

I strongly suspect that when and if T-Mobile catches up to competitor in terms of coverage, you will be paying substantially more (at least for new customers).

Having said all that, T-Mobile is single handedly responsible for driving down prices (or sweetening the deals) of competitors.

Agreed. Bought unlocked iPhone 6 to use with T-Mobile -- everything about them was good except coverage. Unfortunately, I am rural (south of San Jose) and coverage stinks around my town and I got "no service" as soon as I stepped inside most stores or businesses.

Had great coverage in San Jose and other major cities, but as I travelled I soon ran into the same problem - poor or no coverage in many suburbs and weak or no service inside buildings.

After research I found that the suburb issues can be fixed by T-Mobile building/leasing more towers and placing them closer together, but the building penetration problem is bigger. T-Mobile doesn't have much spectrum in the 700MHz range, most of their bandwidth is the higher frequencies which cannot penetrate buildings. So unless T-Mobile is willing to spend millions/billions to buy more desirable frequency at the next big FCC auction next year (and ATT / Verizon don't outbid them), there is nothing they can do to fix their building coverage problems. As an aside, that is why John Legere has been so vocal about changing the FCC rules and reserving more prime freq for "smaller carriers" but the FCC just struck down his request.

Had to switch to Cricket (MVNO for ATT) to get good coverage.

 

[pedro_martins]

How can you guys pay these prices? Do you realize that these companies are skinning you and take all of you for fools, while making more money per quarter than Google or Samsung Electronics, with 0 investment on anything other than marketing?

 

[wlossw]

I pay cad540$ per month incl taxes for 5 lines on 24 month iPhone contracts and 30gb of data with Rogers in Canada . Verizon sounds better...

 

[4jasontv]

Oops. I was not clear that I am currently on AT&T. I fixed my original post.

Enjoy the trip from the frying pan to the fryer.

I kid. I kid.

 

[Prof.]

I pay $140 for 5 lines on T-Mobile and each line has 10 GB. EACH. Thanks T-Mobile

Yes, but the second you* walk into a building, you lose almost all LTE. Several of my coworkers have T-Mo and AT&T and none of them have service at work. When they want to use internet, they have to use my VZW iPhone 6 Plus.

*maybe not you personally, but virtually everyone I know with T-Mo can't get service inside their own house, or any structure for that matter.

 

[C DM]

The US carriers must make obscene profits... the prices US customers pay for their phone service is astronomical. I don't think they realise how much cheaper it is everywhere else.

Um... I hear this all of the time, but never with details. Show me the numbers you are using to make this claim. In 2014 Verizon spent 9.4 billion on wireless. This includes retail operations, customer service, AND network. This year Vodafone spent over 10 billion dollars on just its network.

The US carriers do make large profits but they also have considerably higher costs associated with the infrastructure. We live in a huge country. I paid something like $35/mo for 2GB iPhone in Sweden. Here in Northern California I pay $155/mo for 4GB shared across 2 iPhones and 1 iPad with Verizon. Unfortunately, it is the only carrier with coverage outside of the few major towns. If I could pay less and have a phone I wood.
PS, I've never signed a contract and always bring my own devices.

I'm not defending Verizon, but I hate when people say "My <insert European country> offers x for y". People get it, your wireless service is cheap. Look at the size of your country though and consider that as one factor. Look at the size of the Verizon or AT&T network. Apples to oranges.

Seems like the above exchange pretty much addresses it all. It's an apples to oranges comparison, as someone mentioned, as is the case with various other goods and services that work the same way or the opposite way (cheaper in US and more expensive elsewhere).

 

[joey66215]

Ah. No thanks. There were many times I had "Extended" and "No Service" on Verizon. Now I pay less with T-Mobile and have the same issue

 

[C DM]

How can you guys pay these prices? Do you realize that these companies are skinning you and take all of you for fools, while making more money per quarter than Google or Samsung Electronics, with 0 investment on anything other than marketing?

No investment in anything? I guess LTE and all these other data an network improvements that have been happening over the years are just these magical things that just naturally happen?

As for how people can pay these prices? As opposed to what, not having a phone I guess? I mean what's the alternative that's equivalent and yet so much better as far as cost?

 

[cube]

Welcome to the 21st century. There's no such thing as a phone subsidy.

 

[C DM]

This was a long time in coming. So many people didn't understand the "subsidized" pricing model and continued to use their smartphones after 24 months not realizing they were continuing to pay for subsidies with no benefit. Not all, but many, I'm sure.

Better to break out the phone and service costs separately, which allows consumers to see the differences and be more informed shoppers.

Just so you and I are on the same page here; You do understand you are paying full retail price for your subsided phone, right? A 2-year contract doesn't get you any actual discount. Like a magic trick, it certainly has the illusion of being absolutely real. But, the carrier subsidy like the magic trick, isn't real.

As long as you understand that then I have no problem with you preferring a 2-year contract.

And that is one of the reasons they are moving away from it, because the common consumer still doesn't quite get it to this day. People had issues with this type of approach for a long time, and now that the carriers are moving away from it seems like people are having an issue with it all being more transparent. Go figure.

 

[4jasontv]

Yes, but the second you* walk into a building, you lose almost all LTE. Several of my coworkers have T-Mo and AT&T and none of them have service at work. When they want to use internet, they have to use my VZW iPhone 6 Plus.

*maybe not you personally, but virtually everyone I know with T-Mo can't get service inside their own house, or any structure for that matter.

That has to do with the spectrum the carrier bought, and the way the building was constructed. It does not reflect the quality of service. WiFi calling solves that problem.

My research lab has 0 service from anyone, but my patient examination rooms only get t-mobile and verizon.

 

[roland.g]

"Monthly device access charges"??

Yeah I think they look at it like a three pronged Napoleon attack:

1. Pay for the phone in FULL but we'll spread it out so you don't notice so much.

2. Pay monthly charges for phone service and data.

3. Pay a subscription fee for each device like a gym membership so your phone or tablet can get into the wireless club and work out.

 

[31 Flavas]

As far as individual plans go, this seems on-par with T-Mobile.

T-Mobile:
3GB Smartphone Line = $60/month

Verizon:
3GB Smartphone Line = $65/month

On an individual line basis.

4 lines @ 3 gig on VZW = $260
4 lines @ 3 gig on TMO = $140

 

[C DM]

"Monthly device access charges"??

Yes...basically per line charges that have been there for plans for a while now on different carriers too. Nothing new or surprising.

$30 bucks a month for just one gigabyte of data? Are they serious? The large plan equals to be $10 per 1 gig yet if all you want is one gig they charge you $30, 3 times as much?

You realize that price includes not just the data but the unlimited minutes and messaging as well--basically it's the base price for the service itself and 1 GB of data.

Holding onto my wife and my two unlimited plans that cost us a total of $145/mo never felt so good.

Well, depending on your situation with the phones and how much data you typically use/need you could save some money. Even with the most expensive plan where you get to share 12 GB you would be paying $5/month less (that's assuming you don't have phone payments on top of it).

Are the prices in the article including access for one smartphone plus the data or are those prices just for the data?

Surely they can't be just for the data as that would be a colossal ripoff compared to the plan they've been marketing the hell out of for the last several months -- 2 smartphones, 10 GB of data = $80/month.

So now is it 2 smartphones, 6 GB of data = $100/month?

I hope everyone that wanted to jumped on that 10 GB deal. I thought for sure that would become their new standard price for 2 smartphones and 10 GB of data. I figured they'd throw that bone to their customers since they seem to have no interest in giving them rollover data.

Seems like you got the current promo incorrect--the current promo is 10 GB of data for $80, the phones are then at least $15/month each (if not more, if you are on contract).

 

[C DM]

On an individual line basis.

4 lines @ 3 gig on VZW = $260
4 lines @ 3 gig on TMO = $140

Where does that $260 number come from Verizon? Seems like it would be $160 (given the new pricing of sharing 12 GB among those 4 lines for $80/month).

 

[Prof.]

That has to do with the spectrum the carrier bought, and the way the building was constructed. It does not reflect the quality of service. WiFi calling solves that problem.

My research lab has 0 service from anyone, but my patient examination rooms only get t-mobile and verizon.

I know certain bands have better building penetration than others, and I think it's safe to assume VZW bought all those bands?

 

[4jasontv]

I know certain bands have better building penetration than others, and I think it's safe to assume VZW bought all those bands?

Much of them. The lower the frequency the better it penetrates walls and travels over land.

 

[arggg14]

I know certain bands have better building penetration than others, and I think it's safe to assume VZW bought all those bands?

Pretty much, and they'll outbid anyone whose close.

 

[roland.g]

Just so you and I are on the same page here; You do understand you are paying full retail price for your subsided phone, right? A 2-year contract doesn't get you any actual discount. Like a magic trick, it certainly has the illusion of being absolutely real. But, the carrier subsidy like the magic trick, isn't real.

As long as you understand that then I have no problem with you preferring a 2-year contract.

I love comments like this without any facts. Explain how a $399 iPhone at 2 year pricing is more expensive than a $850 iPhone on Next or any of those monthly plans. Every two years I get a new iPhones, sell my old one for 75-100% of my upgrade depending on condition and new model cost, effectively getting it for free or close to it, only paying my monthly charges which by what I have seen are within $10 of what I would pay monthly for service on their "new" plans before I add in the $27.50-$42.50 per month phone cost.

 

[pedro_martins]

No investment in anything? I guess LTE and all these other data an network improvements that have been happening over the years are just these magical things that just naturally happen?

As for how people can pay these prices? As opposed to what, not having a phone I guess? I mean what's the alternative that's equivalent and yet so much better as far as cost?

Sorry, i thought that you had a government that would protect the citizens against price fixing and so on. Anyway, if you analyze their financials and behaviour, you will come to the conclusion that they do nothing more than rising you off.

I mean, AT&T and Verizon, US centric companies, making more money than Samsung Electronics and Google, global companies, while contributing 0 to the industry.

But it's ok, keep paying.

 

[C DM]

Sorry, i thought that you had a government that would protect the citizens against price fixing and so on. Anyway, if you analyze their financials and behaviour, you will come to the conclusion that they do nothing more than rising you off.

I mean, AT&T and Verizon, US centric companies, making more money than Samsung Electronics and Google, global companies, while contributing 0 to the industry.

But it's ok, keep paying.

You keep saying something about contributing nothing, yet reality shows that's completely incorrect. Seems like that's already a big flaw in what you are saying.

As for prices and all that, are you taking a strong stance on the prices of gas or some other goods and services that cost way more for you compared to those in US or some other countries? Clearly it should just be one same cheap price across the world, it's not like reality of commerce or location or size or anything else would come into play into something like that, right?

 

[31 Flavas]

And that is one of the reasons they are moving away from it, because the common consumer still doesn't quite get it to this day. People had issues with this type of approach for a long time, and now that the carriers are moving away from it seems like people are having an issue with it all being more transparent. Go figure.

I only picked up my first cellular phone / contract around 2005-2006. So I'm not familiar with cellular service before that. However, if I understand you correctly -- and i've never considered this before -- cell phones weren't always sold with a subsidy? A product of my youth. ... Hurray?

That said, though, I can see how the subsidy increasing service prices would cause the same, or well similar, outrage that "taking them" away is now causing.

 

[bnvnsn]

What the hell. I pay £12 a month (monthly, no contract) for unlimited 4G data here in the UK. Those prices seem absolutely obscene.

Yay, capitalism!

 

[andruw000]

I sold my iPhone 5 this morning anticipating purchasing a subsidized 64gb iPhone 6 at BB for $199 and switching to their 1gb single line for $60/month. Assuming that's still available for the next week, how is it not significantly cheaper than the comparable new plan?

Contract plan: $200 + $60(24) = $1640
vs.
New plan: $30 (1gb) + $20 (line access) + $31.25 ($750/24) = $81.25(24) = $1950

Even if the iPhone 6 wasn't on sale at BB, the contract plan would still be over $200 cheaper. Am I missing something here?

 

[C DM]

I sold my iPhone 5 this morning anticipating purchasing a subsidized 64gb iPhone 6 at BB for $199 and switching to their 1gb single line for $60/month. Assuming that's still available for the next week, how is it not significantly cheaper than the comparable new plan?

Contract plan: $200 + $60(24) = $1640
vs.
New plan: $30 (1gb) + $20 (line access) + $31.25 ($750/24) = $81.25(24) = $1950

Even if the iPhone 6 wasn't on sale at BB, the contract plan would still be over $200 cheaper. Am I missing something here?

It wouldn't necessary be cheaper for everyone. Just like even current plans (which will be going away in favor of the new ones) aren't necessarily cheaper for various people on older plans, while they are for some others.