Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Did vzw announce this in the paper statement yet?

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 3:12:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On August 1, 2005, the charge to receive TXT Messages will increase from
$0.02 to $0.10 per message.


10 cents a piece to recieve ? WTF....... i get txt's all the time and was
fine with the 2 cents.. it all add's upin the end. can you get out of your
contract for this? not that i mind as i am up for a new phone.
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 3:12:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Frankster" <Frank@SPAM2TRASH.com> wrote:

>Because of this change I called an subscribed to the 250
>messages for $5/mo plan.


Unfortunately, that's the whole point. Wall Street rates cell phone companies on
their average revenue per unit (subscriber). Cell phone companies structure
their plans to get you to spend as much money per month as possible. They know
that once you sign up for a plan (or plan option), that

a) you tend to forget what it costs you, focusing on those "free" nights,
weekends and text messages.

and

b) you are less likely to reduce your use or drop your subscription
July 31, 2005 3:12:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Clark, you are a master of the obvious! LOL!

-Frank

"Clark W. Griswold, Jr." <spamtrap100@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tokoe1lkl55tiie85d43iasikdt4igfeqh@4ax.com...
> "Frankster" <Frank@SPAM2TRASH.com> wrote:
>
>>Because of this change I called an subscribed to the 250
>>messages for $5/mo plan.
>
>
> Unfortunately, that's the whole point. Wall Street rates cell phone
> companies on
> their average revenue per unit (subscriber). Cell phone companies
> structure
> their plans to get you to spend as much money per month as possible. They
> know
> that once you sign up for a plan (or plan option), that
>
> a) you tend to forget what it costs you, focusing on those "free" nights,
> weekends and text messages.
>
> and
>
> b) you are less likely to reduce your use or drop your subscription
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 9:37:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

As viewed from alt.cellular.verizon, Clark W. Griswold, Jr. wrote:

>"Frankster" wrote:
>>Because of this change I called an subscribed to the 250
>>messages for $5/mo plan.

>Unfortunately, that's the whole point.

Exactly.

--
Jafo
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 7:07:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <tokoe1lkl55tiie85d43iasikdt4igfeqh@4ax.com>,
"Clark W. Griswold, Jr." <spamtrap100@comcast.net> writes:
> "Frankster" <Frank@SPAM2TRASH.com> wrote:
>
>>Because of this change I called an subscribed to the 250
>>messages for $5/mo plan.
>
> Unfortunately, that's the whole point. Wall Street rates cell phone
> companies on
> their average revenue per unit (subscriber).

More specifically: Isn't it on "committed" subscribers? (I.e.: Those
locked-in to contracts of some type.)

> Cell phone companies structure
> their plans to get you to spend as much money per month as possible.

Ya think? :) 

> They know
> that once you sign up for a plan (or plan option), that
>
> a) you tend to forget what it costs you, focusing on those "free" nights,
> weekends and text messages.

Yeah. My wife and I seem to be the exception to that rule. It's
amazing, the money people spend on non-essentials, and the short-term
debt they incur. Then they whine about "barely making ends meet."
When you point out "This is costing you $XX/month, do you really
*need* it?," they reply "But that's only $XX/month!"

Never seems to occur to people that all those "$XX/month" charges
eventually add up to Real Money.

>
> and
>
> b) you are less likely to reduce your use or drop your subscription

Again: I guess my wife and I are the exception to the rule.
Wireless, in particular, is definitely a "dispensible" item with us.
In fact: Were I to lose my job, wireless would probably be one of
the first to go.

--
Jim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not
jseymour@LinxNet.com | go to avoid the labor of thinking."
http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison
July 31, 2005 7:07:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

>> Unfortunately, that's the whole point. Wall Street rates cell phone
>> companies on their average revenue per unit (subscriber).
>
> More specifically: Isn't it on "committed" subscribers? (I.e.: Those
> locked-in to contracts of some type.)

No. The new message rate affects both subscribers and non subscribers. Per
unit is per customer plan, contract or not.

>> a) you tend to forget what it costs you, focusing on those "free" nights,
>> weekends and text messages.
>
> Yeah. My wife and I seem to be the exception to that rule.

Is that because you and your wife are smarter than everyone else? Just
curious.

>> b) you are less likely to reduce your use or drop your subscription
>
> Again: I guess my wife and I are the exception to the rule.

Boy, you guys really are the smartest of the bunch.

> Wireless, in particular, is definitely a "dispensible" item with us.

Well, if wireless is a "dispensable" item for you, you obviously are a cut
above the average person.

> In fact: Were I to lose my job, wireless would probably be one of
> the first to go.

Yeah, that really is profound. Nevermind all the folks whose job is greatly
enhanced by wireless service. Just make comparisons between those that
don't need wireless to those who do.

Apples and oranges. I don't see why you are trying to capitalize on simple
differences between people and their chosen life and careers by insinuating
that your needs/desires are more "proper" somehow than those of others.

-Frank
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 7:07:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <11epqa0hbhkhmdb@corp.supernews.com>,
jseymour@LinxNet.com (Jim Seymour) wrote:

> Again: I guess my wife and I are the exception to the rule.
> Wireless, in particular, is definitely a "dispensible" item with us.
> In fact: Were I to lose my job, wireless would probably be one of
> the first to go.

Yeah. I have wireless only because my company pays for the bulk of it,
and my use of it is in my job.

I expect to be in that position for the rest of my working life.

But if things changed and it were all coming out of my pocket? I
wouldn't have it.
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 7:07:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,misc.consumers.frugal (More info?)

jseymour@LinxNet.com (Jim Seymour) wrote:

>My wife and I seem to be the exception to that rule.

Same here. Sometimes it takes pointing out the obvious to make people realize
they don't have to buy into this max rate subscription lifestyle.

I use a grandfathered digital cell plan - $19.99/month for 100 minutes, with my
wife on a $9.99 addon for 30 minutes. Covers all our incidental usage and can't
imagine wanting to spend hours talking on a cell phone. The only extra is $2.99
a month for unlimited text messages, and the usefulness of that has dropped
since my employer started blocking autoforwarded email messages, which is what I
mostly used it for.

Long distance (what there is) is covered by a company that charges less than 3
cents a minute with no monthly subscription or comittment.

NIghts & weekends? No thanks, I'd rather be doing things other than talking on
my cell phone... :) 
Anonymous
August 1, 2005 5:14:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 23:12:56 -0400, "Brian S." <deadhead73@comcast.net>
wrote:
>On August 1, 2005, the charge to receive TXT Messages will increase from
>$0.02 to $0.10 per message.
>Did vzw announce this in the paper statement yet?

Yet? It was in my June statement. Maybe you should read yours.
August 1, 2005 9:30:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Jim Seymour wrote on [Sun, 31 Jul 2005 16:33:26 -0000]:
> [Note: Attibutions restored]
>
> In article <iu2dnUmcT4WIb3HfRVn-jA@giganews.com>,
> "Frankster" <Frank@SPAM2TRASH.com> writes:
>>In article <11epqa0hbhkhmdb@corp.supernews.com>,
>> jseymour@LinxNet.com (Jim Seymour) writes:
>>> In article <tokoe1lkl55tiie85d43iasikdt4igfeqh@4ax.com>,
>>> "Clark W. Griswold, Jr." <spamtrap100@comcast.net> writes:
> [snip]
>>
>>>> a) you tend to forget what it costs you, focusing on those "free" nights,
>>>> weekends and text messages.
>>>
>>> Yeah. My wife and I seem to be the exception to that rule.
>>
>> Is that because you and your wife are smarter than everyone else? Just
>> curious.
>
> Maybe so, but I didn't say that.
>
>>
>>>> b) you are less likely to reduce your use or drop your subscription
>>>
>>> Again: I guess my wife and I are the exception to the rule.
>>
>> Boy, you guys really are the smartest of the bunch.
>
> Didn't say that, either.

You tried to imply it.

>>> Wireless, in particular, is definitely a "dispensible" item with us.
>>
>> Well, if wireless is a "dispensable" item for you, you obviously are a cut
>> above the average person.
>
> Your opinion, I guess. I never said that. Personally, I can't see
> as how needing or not needing wireless says anything about anybody's
> "superiority," in any respect, one way or the other.

My wife and I ....



>> Apples and oranges.
>
> To make an "apples and oranges" comparison, there must be a
> comparison made. I made no comparisons between anything or anybody.

and I quote

>> a) you tend to forget what it costs you, focusing on those "free"
>> nights,
>> weekends and text messages.

>Yeah. My wife and I seem to be the exception to that rule.


looks like a comparison to me.
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 4:41:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Brian S. wrote:
> On August 1, 2005, the charge to receive TXT Messages will increase from
> $0.02 to $0.10 per message.
>
>
> 10 cents a piece to recieve ? WTF....... i get txt's all the time and was
> fine with the 2 cents.. it all add's upin the end. can you get out of your
> contract for this? not that i mind as i am up for a new phone.
>
>
Sounds like it is time to call support and block text messages on our
phones. They can do that for you. If enough people do that, maybe they
will "get the message". ( No Pun intended )
Tim
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 7:10:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,misc.consumers.frugal (More info?)

"Clark W. Griswold, Jr." wrote:

> jseymour@LinxNet.com (Jim Seymour) wrote:
>
> >My wife and I seem to be the exception to that rule.
>
> Same here. Sometimes it takes pointing out the obvious to make people realize
> they don't have to buy into this max rate subscription lifestyle.
>
> I use a grandfathered digital cell plan - $19.99/month for 100 minutes, with my
> wife on a $9.99 addon for 30 minutes. Covers all our incidental usage and can't
> imagine wanting to spend hours talking on a cell phone. The only extra is $2.99
> a month for unlimited text messages, and the usefulness of that has dropped
> since my employer started blocking autoforwarded email messages, which is what I
> mostly used it for.
>
> Long distance (what there is) is covered by a company that charges less than 3
> cents a minute with no monthly subscription or comittment.
>
> NIghts & weekends? No thanks, I'd rather be doing things other than talking on
> my cell phone... :) 

I can't speak for everyone, but I know a LOT of younger people who don't have
wirelines telephones anymore. It's simply too expensive to start up wireline
service in relation to wireless service when you don't have a long established
credit history. Heck, even when I started, which was more than just a couple of
years ago, I needed no deposit for wireless service, and a simple $18.00 activation
fee. To start up wireline service with one of the Baby Bells (US West, at the time,
I believe, but it may have been Qwest already), I would have needed to come up with
$450 up front, $250 for a deposit, and $200 for activation, plus it would have cost
me $50 to transfer my service anytime I moved in the local calling area (and college
students move a LOT). I have switched wireless carriers a couple of times, and I
have neither had to purchase equipment nor pay activation fees. I end up making a
LOT of long distance calls, and it all comes out cheaper than a wireline solution
(plus mobility).

I wouldn't be surprised how many people are in the same situation, with lack of a
credit history. I do not feel bad for those people with a bad credit history,
because it was the consequences of their actions that got them to that point.

TH
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 9:06:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Brian S. wrote:
> On August 1, 2005, the charge to receive TXT Messages will increase from
> $0.02 to $0.10 per message.
>
>
> 10 cents a piece to recieve ? WTF....... i get txt's all the time and was
> fine with the 2 cents.. it all add's upin the end. can you get out of your
> contract for this? not that i mind as i am up for a new phone.

The 500% increase is going to buy high capacity pumps to drain out
their Mumbai offices, and snorkel fins.

JG
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 9:14:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,misc.consumers.frugal (More info?)

Tropical Haven wrote:
> I wouldn't be surprised how many people are in the same situation, with lack of a
> credit history. I do not feel bad for those people with a bad credit history,
> because it was the consequences of their actions that got them to that point.

You mean such as a relative of mine whose bitch of a soon-to-be-ex-wife
suddenly ended their relationship in the most expensive possible ways?
Not everyone with a bad credit rating has it because of his own actions.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.
!