Verizon Updates Ultimate 5G Plan With More Data and New Features

[eltoslightfoot]

While Visible is owned by Verizon, and on the sane network, I've read Visible customers are deprioritized on the network. A hundred for four lines is pretty good, but you can get that right now too, and four free iPhones, on Verizon and Tmobile.

Personally, we've always received excellent coverage and customer service from Verizon so I haven't been tempted to leave for another carrier. I still comparison shop every now and then out of curiosity but the "savings" are too meager to switch my 12-line family plan. Verizon has been very good to us for close to a decade. Tmobile can't do a 12-line family plan, you have to split it up into two accounts. I am not a Verizon diehard and admit their 5G Home internet product was disappointing and slower than my phone, but with regard to cell phone service Verizon has been tops for us.

View attachment 2504126View attachment 2504127

A deal like this is exactly what they messed up for me. I never got the $23 per line discount for the 3 years. It was a gigantic cluster. I got so bad trying to get my $23 per line that I finally paid for all three phones out of pocket and just left. So YMMV.

 

[kuito]

I'd recommend you continue to research more technical aspects of your theories.

"Ultra Wideband" or mmWave spectrum is indeed limited in deployment, and always will be. Due to they physical nature of the spectrum, it is very short range (you correctly point out its limited availability typically in urban areas), and is highly sensitive to interference (even a tree or window is extraordinarily disruptive to the signal integrity). The nature of mmWave also necessitates higher-powered telco radios and baseband processing equipment.

Regardless of profit volumes, every company makes ROI evaluations. Spending that $20B so more rural areas can have mmWave deployments would lead to shareholders voting for board members, who would ultimately fire the C-suite responsible.

So yes, there are both technical and financial reasons why you don't have mmWave covering every square mile in the US.

It's easy to shake your fist in frustration, as opposed to peeling back the nuances of what's really going on.

You’re absolutely right about mmWave’s limitations — no one’s asking for 60 GHz signal in a cornfield. But citing the physics of one spectrum band to dismiss broader concerns about the industry is just sidestepping the actual conversation.

The issue isn’t whether mmWave is hard to deploy — it’s that the industry’s overall pace of innovation has been carefully throttled to protect ARPU, not improve consumer outcomes. Verizon’s “Ultra Wideband” campaign has been a years-long marketing push that overpromised and underdelivered — even in areas where deployment is entirely feasible.

And yes, of course ROI drives decision-making. That’s exactly the point: when the top 3 carriers control 99% of the postpaid market, they’re not incentivized to compete aggressively — they’re incentivized to extract value slowly and in sync.

What you’re calling “nuance” is really just rationalization — ignoring the economic structure and pretending technical complexity fully explains away why users pay more and get less than they should.

If this market behaved like a truly competitive one, you’d see pricing compression, broader access to high-bandwidth service, and MVNOs with real freedom to disrupt. Instead, we get speed caps, throttling clauses, and artificial scarcity — dressed up as engineering necessity.

You’re defending a captured system and calling it capitalism.

Be well++

 

[BeatCrazy]

If this market behaved like a truly competitive one, you’d see pricing compression, broader access to high-bandwidth service, and MVNOs with real freedom to disrupt. Instead, we get speed caps, throttling clauses, and artificial scarcity — dressed up as engineering necessity.

Not sure how long you've been paying for cellular service, but the price per GB and features has been dropping like a rock for 30+ years.

Literally the very definition of price compression has been going on consistently. For years.

2004 pricing below. Don't forget about inflation factors.

 

[switz]

Sympathy for the Cell telcos falls between two words in the dictionary that are not used in the forums.

Charge what the market will bear has always been their moto.

But building out the towers is not cheap. In the early 2000s, I drove more often than I care to remember between Southern Indiana and the Phoenix area. There was a "private" tower in the pahandle of Texas along side of I-40 and even though no calls were received or started, a bill would come for accessing their tower while passing by.

One can see the carriers' coverage maps now. In a few years, even the white "no signal" areas could be gone due to satellite augmentation. Big Brother will know where you are to probably within a 10' circle.

 

[_Spook_]

I don't think you read my post correctly - Australia is NOT the same size as the USA, it's about three-quarters the size. I'd let it slide, but you decided to repeat the exact same mistake again, after I pointed to evidence to the contrary.

Yes, our prices are too high - I SAID THAT.

And as far as "just taking it", dammit, we've got bigger problems to fight right now than wireless service prices - but sure, ignore what I said and lecture me on that.

Your maths needs looking at. It’s as accurate as your facts.

 

[CarlJ]

Your maths needs looking at. It’s as accurate as your facts.

You just can't accept that you're wrong, can you? I'm seeing lots of arrogance mixed in with you being confidently incorrect.

From the Wikipedia page on Australia:

Area • Total: 7,688,287 km2 (2,968,464 sq mi)​

From the Wikipedia page on the United States:

Area • Total: 3,796,742 sq mi (9,833,520 km2)​

Both sets of numbers have citations on those pages, to their official government sources. I trust those government sources more than your "trust me bro".

Do the math with either set of numbers (metric or imperial), and you'll find the total area of Australia is approximately 78.184% that of the USA.

And 78% is not the same as 100%.