AT&T/Cingular Customers Call Free to AT&T Landline Customers

AT&T announced that they will expand the ability of their wireless customers
to make free calls. In addition to getting free m2m, wireless customers
will be able to call AT&T landlines without incurring usage fees or using
their wireless minutes.

AT&T has 100 million landlines.

Good marketing strategy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/bu...=1&oref=slogin

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:39:38 GMT, "jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:

>AT&T announced that they will expand the ability of their wireless customers
>to make free calls. In addition to getting free m2m, wireless customers
>will be able to call AT&T landlines without incurring usage fees or using
>their wireless minutes.
>
>AT&T has 100 million landlines.

Maybe 20 meet the requiremenrts.

>
>Good marketing strategy.

Bad marketing, when folks find they dont get that free calling because
of all the gotchas.

>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/bu...=1&oref=slogin
>

NOW THE REST OF THE STORY.

Jeremy left out all the gotchas.. It's hardly a simple plan.
To call a landline free, the landline customer

1. Must be an AT&T POTS customer, within the regular AT&T service
area. (SBC/Bellsouth) on the landline.

2. Must have AT&T unlimited long distance and unlimited local on the
landline. Far more expensive than say Vonage.

and....

3. Wireless customer must have a $59.99 or more AT&T wireless plan.

4. The press release fails to mention (and thus likely time charges at
the wireless end) calls from landline to wireless.

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:12:45 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:39:38 GMT, "jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>AT&T announced that they will expand the ability of their wireless customers
>>to make free calls. In addition to getting free m2m, wireless customers
>>will be able to call AT&T landlines without incurring usage fees or using
>>their wireless minutes.
>>
>>AT&T has 100 million landlines.
>
>Maybe 20 meet the requiremenrts.
>
>>
>>Good marketing strategy.
>
>Bad marketing, when folks find they dont get that free calling because
>of all the gotchas.
>
>>
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/bu...=1&oref=slogin
>>
>
>NOW THE REST OF THE STORY.
>
>Jeremy left out all the gotchas.. It's hardly a simple plan.
> To call a landline free, the landline customer
>
>1. Must be an AT&T POTS customer, within the regular AT&T service
>area. (SBC/Bellsouth) on the landline.
>
>2. Must have AT&T unlimited long distance and unlimited local on the
>landline. Far more expensive than say Vonage.
>
>and....
>
>3. Wireless customer must have a $59.99 or more AT&T wireless plan.
>
>4. The press release fails to mention (and thus likely time charges at
>the wireless end) calls from landline to wireless.


More gotchas - in the press release/web site, but not the news story.

5. You have to get a new Cingular "Unity" plan (likely will decrease
your plan minutes).

6. You have to have combined ATT/Cingular billing; likely the $5 month
credit for combined billing is going away due to the "benefit" of the
Unity plan.

http://www.cingular.com/learn/why/un...nformation.jsp

Read it and weep. Put a pencil to it. For most people, you lose.

In article <j6o1r2lhptvii6dc76nqq1m3gtlfaj9hkh@4ax.com>,
karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:12:45 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:39:38 GMT, "jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >>AT&T announced that they will expand the ability of their wireless
> >>customers
> >>to make free calls. In addition to getting free m2m, wireless customers
> >>will be able to call AT&T landlines without incurring usage fees or using
> >>their wireless minutes.
> >>
> >>AT&T has 100 million landlines.
> >
> >Maybe 20 meet the requiremenrts.
> >
> >>
> >>Good marketing strategy.
> >
> >Bad marketing, when folks find they dont get that free calling because
> >of all the gotchas.
> >
> >>
> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/bu...=1&oref=slogin
> >>
> >
> >NOW THE REST OF THE STORY.
> >
> >Jeremy left out all the gotchas.. It's hardly a simple plan.
> > To call a landline free, the landline customer
> >
> >1. Must be an AT&T POTS customer, within the regular AT&T service
> >area. (SBC/Bellsouth) on the landline.
> >
> >2. Must have AT&T unlimited long distance and unlimited local on the
> >landline. Far more expensive than say Vonage.
> >
> >and....
> >
> >3. Wireless customer must have a $59.99 or more AT&T wireless plan.
> >
> >4. The press release fails to mention (and thus likely time charges at
> >the wireless end) calls from landline to wireless.
>
>
> More gotchas - in the press release/web site, but not the news story.
>
> 5. You have to get a new Cingular "Unity" plan (likely will decrease
> your plan minutes).
>
> 6. You have to have combined ATT/Cingular billing; likely the $5 month
> credit for combined billing is going away due to the "benefit" of the
> Unity plan.
>
> http://www.cingular.com/learn/why/un...nformation.jsp
>
> Read it and weep. Put a pencil to it. For most people, you lose.

Yes, their ads will be a huge headline announcing FREE CALLING WITH ATT,
a short teaser with a picture of a teen on a phone calling a friend at
home, then 50 paragraphs of 5 pt. type disclaimers.
LOL

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

jeremy wrote:
> AT&T announced that they will expand the ability of their wireless customers
> to make free calls. In addition to getting free m2m, wireless customers
> will be able to call AT&T landlines without incurring usage fees or using
> their wireless minutes.
>
> AT&T has 100 million landlines.
>
> Good marketing strategy.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/bu...=1&oref=slogin

Of those 100 million landlines, how many have AT&T unlimited long
distance at at least $40/month, and how many of the cellular lines have
$59.99/900 minutes. I guess it's aimed at businesses.

SMS wrote:
> jeremy wrote:
>> AT&T announced that they will expand the ability of their wireless
>> customers to make free calls. In addition to getting free m2m,
>> wireless customers will be able to call AT&T landlines without
>> incurring usage fees or using their wireless minutes.
>>
>> AT&T has 100 million landlines.
>>
>> Good marketing strategy.
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/bu...=1&oref=slogin
>
> Of those 100 million landlines, how many have AT&T unlimited long
> distance at at least $40/month, and how many of the cellular lines have
> $59.99/900 minutes. I guess it's aimed at businesses.


To be sure, it's an aggressive marketing plan intended to nudge clients
into a package focused on bundled service from at&t. Not that there's
anything wrong with that.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:45b0f96d$0$69018$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> jeremy wrote:
>> AT&T announced that they will expand the ability of their wireless
>> customers to make free calls. In addition to getting free m2m, wireless
>> customers will be able to call AT&T landlines without incurring usage
>> fees or using their wireless minutes.
>>
>> AT&T has 100 million landlines.
>>
>> Good marketing strategy.
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/bu...=1&oref=slogin
>
> Of those 100 million landlines, how many have AT&T unlimited long distance
> at at least $40/month, and how many of the cellular lines have $59.99/900
> minutes. I guess it's aimed at businesses.

Still, it sounds like a powerful advertising incentive. If your business
and/or family are on AT&T landlines, that could give you a lot of free
calls. Even if the monthly charge is a bit on the high side, there are
going to be people that will come out ahead.

jeremy wrote:
> AT&T announced that they will expand the ability of their wireless customers
> to make free calls. In addition to getting free m2m, wireless customers
> will be able to call AT&T landlines without incurring usage fees or using
> their wireless minutes.

Combine that with Remote Call Forwarding, and you could effectively get
free calls to anyone else. Assuming you have the unlimited LD package on
your home phone.

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:08:37 -0600, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:

>SMS wrote:
>> jeremy wrote:
>>> AT&T announced that they will expand the ability of their wireless
>>> customers to make free calls. In addition to getting free m2m,
>>> wireless customers will be able to call AT&T landlines without
>>> incurring usage fees or using their wireless minutes.
>>>
>>> AT&T has 100 million landlines.
>>>
>>> Good marketing strategy.
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/bu...=1&oref=slogin
>>
>> Of those 100 million landlines, how many have AT&T unlimited long
>> distance at at least $40/month, and how many of the cellular lines have
>> $59.99/900 minutes. I guess it's aimed at businesses.
>
>
>To be sure, it's an aggressive marketing plan intended to nudge clients
>into a package focused on bundled service from at&t. Not that there's
>anything wrong with that.


It's called deceptive advertising. Making like they're giving you
something for nothing when in fact you're losing.

At the very least the monthly discount for combined billing.

karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:

> It's called deceptive advertising. Making like they're giving you
> something for nothing when in fact you're losing.

AT&T has long been the master at deceptive long distance calling plans.

karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:08:37 -0600, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
>> SMS wrote:
>>> jeremy wrote:
>>>> AT&T announced that they will expand the ability of their wireless
>>>> customers to make free calls. In addition to getting free m2m,
>>>> wireless customers will be able to call AT&T landlines without
>>>> incurring usage fees or using their wireless minutes.
>>>>
>>>> AT&T has 100 million landlines.
>>>>
>>>> Good marketing strategy.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/bu...=1&oref=slogin
>>> Of those 100 million landlines, how many have AT&T unlimited long
>>> distance at at least $40/month, and how many of the cellular lines have
>>> $59.99/900 minutes. I guess it's aimed at businesses.
>>
>> To be sure, it's an aggressive marketing plan intended to nudge clients
>> into a package focused on bundled service from at&t. Not that there's
>> anything wrong with that.
>
>
> It's called deceptive advertising. Making like they're giving you
> something for nothing when in fact you're losing.
>
> At the very least the monthly discount for combined billing.


Well... uhhhh... yeah... all advertising is either a half-truth or a
half-lie, depending on whether or not the audience is in the marketing
business. I'm not.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

<karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3ot4r2pp3u7gchke6qsg3787ppsbqlrdge@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:08:37 -0600, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
>>SMS wrote:
>>> jeremy wrote:
>>>> AT&T announced that they will expand the ability of their wireless
>>>> customers to make free calls. In addition to getting free m2m,
>>>> wireless customers will be able to call AT&T landlines without
>>>> incurring usage fees or using their wireless minutes.
>>>>
>>>> AT&T has 100 million landlines.
>>>>
>>>> Good marketing strategy.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/bu...=1&oref=slogin
>>>
>>> Of those 100 million landlines, how many have AT&T unlimited long
>>> distance at at least $40/month, and how many of the cellular lines have
>>> $59.99/900 minutes. I guess it's aimed at businesses.
>>
>>
>>To be sure, it's an aggressive marketing plan intended to nudge clients
>>into a package focused on bundled service from at&t. Not that there's
>>anything wrong with that.
>
>
> It's called deceptive advertising. Making like they're giving you
> something for nothing when in fact you're losing.
>
> At the very least the monthly discount for combined billing.


I agree that this will not be beneficial to everybody, but . . .

Those customers that meet the requirements will see their total number of
free calling numbers increase by a factor of 4 (I think that Cingular had
about 25 million m2m, and they now are adding 100m landlines).

I hope that my own carrier, Sprint, offers something similar to its
customers.

With all the stagnation in innovative discount plans lately, it is good to
see "something" new.

I am quite happy with Sprint. $30/month per line, 7 PM N/W, free roaming,
even local calls will hop onto Verizon if there is no Sprint tower,
unlimited M2M (I use that a lot), Free long distance. C'mon, where can I go
and get a deal that is much better than that? And, unlike my experience
with Cingular, after they took control of my ATTWS service, my calls go
through on the first try, and I rarely get a dropped call.

All I want to do is to be able to make and receive calls. No need for
anything else. Just have my phone connect when I need it. I was happier
with my old Motorola handset, back in the analog days, than I was with
Cingular. My daughter, on the other hand, uses them and loves them. Go
figure.

VONAGE is VOIP! Not landline service and there are a few "Must Have's"
to get this package, but it isn't much different than having a
landline, cellphone etc. The benefits are far greater and much more
cost effective in the long run.


3GFreak
www.mobilevertigo.com

karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:39:38 GMT, "jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >AT&T announced that they will expand the ability of their wireless customers
> >to make free calls. In addition to getting free m2m, wireless customers
> >will be able to call AT&T landlines without incurring usage fees or using
> >their wireless minutes.
> >
> >AT&T has 100 million landlines.
>
> Maybe 20 meet the requiremenrts.
>
> >
> >Good marketing strategy.
>
> Bad marketing, when folks find they dont get that free calling because
> of all the gotchas.
>
> >
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/bu...=1&oref=slogin
> >
>
> NOW THE REST OF THE STORY.
>
> Jeremy left out all the gotchas.. It's hardly a simple plan.
> To call a landline free, the landline customer
>
> 1. Must be an AT&T POTS customer, within the regular AT&T service
> area. (SBC/Bellsouth) on the landline.
>
> 2. Must have AT&T unlimited long distance and unlimited local on the
> landline. Far more expensive than say Vonage.
>
> and....
>
> 3. Wireless customer must have a $59.99 or more AT&T wireless plan.
>
> 4. The press release fails to mention (and thus likely time charges at
> the wireless end) calls from landline to wireless.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-B95871.16285121012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com...
> In article <1169411951.047091.172270@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups .com>,
> "3Gfreak" <tastybreeze@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> VONAGE is VOIP! Not landline service and there are a few "Must Have's"
>> to get this package, but it isn't much different than having a
>> landline, cellphone etc. The benefits are far greater and much more
>> cost effective in the long run.
>
> Not sure what your post had to do with the article you actually replied
> to...
>
> Anyway, vonage is overpriced. WAY overpriced. Do your research.
>

Published reports have noted that 25% of Vonage's customers leave each year.
Vonage has to find replacements for 25% of their customer base annually,
just to stay in place. If memory serves me correctly, Vonage has not turned
a profit yet.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-B95871.16285121012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com...
>
> Anyway, vonage is overpriced. WAY overpriced. Do your research.

After SWB/SBC/ATT charged me 98 cents a minute for Canada calls, I went
Vonage where Canada is local.

Charter called to offer 32 cents/min for calls to Costa Rica vs ATT's 34
cents; Vonage is 2 (yep, two). I call every week now, not every quarter.

Well I guess I didn't make my self clear, but I what I was trying to
say is that the landline service is a much more cost effective way to
go than Vonage - so actually it had alot to do with the post

3GFreak
www.mobilevertigo.com

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <1169411951.047091.172270@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups .com>,
> "3Gfreak" <tastybreeze@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > VONAGE is VOIP! Not landline service and there are a few "Must Have's"
> > to get this package, but it isn't much different than having a
> > landline, cellphone etc. The benefits are far greater and much more
> > cost effective in the long run.
>
> Not sure what your post had to do with the article you actually replied
> to...
>
> Anyway, vonage is overpriced. WAY overpriced. Do your research.

3Gfreak wrote:
> Well I guess I didn't make my self clear, but I what I was trying to
> say is that the landline service is a much more cost effective way to
> go than Vonage - so actually it had alot to do with the post

Vonage is doing very poorly, mainly because it's so cost ineffective
compared to a landline and a cheap long-distance service like OneSuite
or TalkLoop. Even among VOIP providers, their system is less capable,
and more expensive than other companies, like Voicestick.

At 21 Jan 2007 20:04:03 -0800 SMS wrote:

> Vonage is doing very poorly, mainly because it's so cost ineffective
> compared to a landline and a cheap long-distance service like
> OneSuite or TalkLoop.


They remind me of AOL in it's heyday. They price themselves above
market, capitalizing on the ignorance of their users who think this is
how all providers of that service work.

Take the Vonage soft-phone, for example- first, they didn't offer it
until long after other providers did, and then they have the nerve to
charge $10/month extra for it!

> Even among VOIP providers, their system is less capable, and more
> expensive than other companies, like Voicestick.

Agreed. Vonage got in the game early, and seems to think their
continuous advertising will convince people it's a good deal. Again,
it's their reliance on ignorance- people think $25 is a good deal vs.
their landline provider, and it probably is, but competing VoIPs- even
the mainstream ones like Sunrocket, offer better rates.

I've been playing with Voicestick more since finding a good deal on their
unlocked MG-3 ATA on eBay ($10!) Sound quality is good, and it's a
pleasure using a real phone and not needing a PC or proprietary wireless
hardware, like with Skype. The fact that I can use a softphone as well,
for no extra cost, on my PPC phone is a bonus. (That comes in handy when
I'm stuck in a hotel with free Wi-Fi and crummy T-Mobile reception!)

"Thurman" <thurman@bigplanet.com> wrote in message
news:hDXsh.155$g57.110@newsfe02.lga...
>
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
> news:elmop-B95871.16285121012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com...
>>
>> Anyway, vonage is overpriced. WAY overpriced. Do your research.
>
> After SWB/SBC/ATT charged me 98 cents a minute for Canada calls, I went
> Vonage where Canada is local.
>
> Charter called to offer 32 cents/min for calls to Costa Rica vs ATT's 34
> cents; Vonage is 2 (yep, two). I call every week now, not every quarter.
>
>
>

Skype is offering unlimited calls for $14.95 per year! The price doubles
after 1/31.

There are numerous phone sets offered that look and act like ordinary
cordless phones, but which run the calls over Skype.

They will even give you a local phone number, so you can receive incoming
calls from people using regular phone lines, for $38.00 annually.

Todd Allcock wrote:

> Agreed. Vonage got in the game early, and seems to think their
> continuous advertising will convince people it's a good deal. Again,
> it's their reliance on ignorance- people think $25 is a good deal vs.
> their landline provider, and it probably is, but competing VoIPs- even
> the mainstream ones like Sunrocket, offer better rates.

If they make a lot of long distance calls, AND they have broadband cable
internet, AND they need to make a lot of peak time calls that they can't
use N&W or MTM on their cell phone for, then $25 may be better than
their landline. Personally, I'd have to make three hours of long
distance calls per month before Vonage would be worthwhile, not counting
the fact that cable broadband would cost me an extra $25 per month over
DSL, which would pay for more than another twenty hours of long distance.

People get carried away with "unlimited" because they are unaware of how
cheap long distance calling actually is if they sign up for a good
service such as TalkLoop. They're doing their calculations using LD
rates from AT&T or other high cost LD provider. They might also benefit
from switching to a wireless carrier like Sprint that has 7 p.m. nights
and weekends, versus 9 p.m. of the other carriers.

> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> Agreed. Vonage got in the game early, and seems to think their
>> continuous advertising will convince people it's a good deal. Again,
>> it's their reliance on ignorance- people think $25 is a good deal vs.
>> their landline provider, and it probably is, but competing VoIPs- even
>> the mainstream ones like Sunrocket, offer better rates.
>

The fact remains that Vonage is operating in the red, so it would be
difficult for them to justify a rate reduction.

I use Verizon's VoIP service, VoiceWing, also $24.95 per month, and it is a
Godsend, considering that I routinely used to generate LD bills in excess of
$200/month, back in the days of AT&T Reach Out America (First hour was
$10.00, and additional hours were $7.80 each, billed in increments of one
minute after the first full hour).

These are, truly, great days for long distance customers. Who ever thought
that we could communicate for free via Instant Messenger, or for $15/year
via Skype, or $25.00 per month on VoIP lines? Who would have believed, back
in 1984, that AT&T long distance would one day be replaced by cheap
flat-rate substitutes? I, for one, am truly grateful. I remember in the
80s, when a call on Bell coast-to-coast was $.57 per minute during the
daytime.

jeremy wrote:
>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>
>>> Agreed. Vonage got in the game early, and seems to think their
>>> continuous advertising will convince people it's a good deal. Again,
>>> it's their reliance on ignorance- people think $25 is a good deal vs.
>>> their landline provider, and it probably is, but competing VoIPs- even
>>> the mainstream ones like Sunrocket, offer better rates.
>
> The fact remains that Vonage is operating in the red, so it would be
> difficult for them to justify a rate reduction.

That's not the way pricing works. You set your prices to be competitive,
it doesn't matter whether you're in the black or the red. You can't
raise prices to raise revenue, as you'll lose customers. Sometimes
lowering prices increases revenue as volume goes up.

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:45b54732$0$68952$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> jeremy wrote:
>>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>>
>>>> Agreed. Vonage got in the game early, and seems to think their
>>>> continuous advertising will convince people it's a good deal. Again,
>>>> it's their reliance on ignorance- people think $25 is a good deal vs.
>>>> their landline provider, and it probably is, but competing VoIPs- even
>>>> the mainstream ones like Sunrocket, offer better rates.
>>
>> The fact remains that Vonage is operating in the red, so it would be
>> difficult for them to justify a rate reduction.
>
> That's not the way pricing works. You set your prices to be competitive,
> it doesn't matter whether you're in the black or the red. You can't raise
> prices to raise revenue, as you'll lose customers. Sometimes lowering
> prices increases revenue as volume goes up.

What is so bad with $25.00/month? Vonage's customers leave, according to
industry reports, because they are unhappy with the call quality, not
because of price.

Does Cingular price their wireless service to be competitive?

At 23 Jan 2007 03:56:39 +0000 jeremy wrote:

> What is so bad with $25.00/month?

Nothing per se, but that's at the high end of unlimted VoIP. Others do
it for $15 or $20, and many offer pay as you go, which is a bargain for
those who use VoIP primarily for international calls (which typically
fall outside the unlimited US/Canada plans.)

> Vonage's customers leave, according to
> industry reports, because they are unhappy with the call quality, not
> because of price.

But the two are related: perceptions of "quality" are colored by value.
People might expect less "quality" from Vonage for $15 than $25, much
like the quality expectation of a $1 McDonald's hamburger is less than a
$10 burger at the Hard Rock.

No offense to Vonage, but my landline service is only $25 (without LD, of
course.) For $25/month I'd expect the Vonage experience to be very close
to landline in quality and uptime, whereas for $10 or $15/month, I'd cut
them a lot more slack.


> Does Cingular price their wireless service to be competitive?

Of course. Their rates are almost in lockstep with Verizon's, despite
higher costs, higher churn, etc. Remember, "competitive" doesn't mean
"cheapest," just in the ballpark, with reasonable justifications for
higher prices! Verizon commands relatively higher prices because the
public's perception of quality ("the network") allows it. Cingular can
offer fewer minutes than others for the same monthly rate as others
because they give you "rollover," etc.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-B8D4EC.06354923012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com...
> In article <XHfth.22592$gS1.21423@trndny01>,
> "jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> What is so bad with $25.00/month? Vonage's customers leave, according to
>> industry reports, because they are unhappy with the call quality, not
>> because of price.
>
> What's wrong with $25/month is that the same service with the same
> features is available for $8/month elsewhere.
>
> Jesus, kid. Get a clue.

This is at least the second time you said $8 elsewhere.
So who provides the service at that price and will give me land line quality
?

Double Tap

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <ebnth.13338$pQ3.6822@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink .net>,
> "Double Tap" <doubletap@37.com> wrote:
>
>>> Jesus, kid. Get a clue.
>> This is at least the second time you said $8 elsewhere.
>> So who provides the service at that price and will give me land line quality
>> ?
>
> Sunrocket.

Sunrocket is $17 per month. Yes, everyone knows that you signed up when
there was a half-price special, but the cost now is $199 for two years.

"http://www.sunrocket.com/"

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <45b4d00f$0$69035$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Agreed. Vonage got in the game early, and seems to think their
>>> continuous advertising will convince people it's a good deal. Again,
>>> it's their reliance on ignorance- people think $25 is a good deal vs.
>>> their landline provider, and it probably is, but competing VoIPs- even
>>> the mainstream ones like Sunrocket, offer better rates.
>> If they make a lot of long distance calls, AND they have broadband cable
>> internet, AND they need to make a lot of peak time calls that they can't
>> use N&W or MTM on their cell phone for, then $25 may be better than
>> their landline.
>
> That's right.
>
> But $8/month for exactly the same thing is even better.

Sunrocket is $17/month. The half-price special is long over. Still, $17
is better than $25.

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:45b62d22$0$68988$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
> $25 is more than what most people spend for their land line and long
> distance combined. Remember, a great deal of long distance is now done on
> off-peak or mobile to mobile cell phone minutes. Not free, but included at
> no extra cost.
>


I use VoiceWing, also $24.95/month, with no term commitment, and it is a
BARGAIN over what I paid when long distance was billed by the minute. While
I realize that there might be cheaper services out there, I like the fact
that Verizon remains my service provider, rather than some unknown company
without a track record.

I can think of lots of other things to complain about, but not $25.00/month
for a line, all the calling features, and unlimited LD to the US and
Canada--that is an amazing value for me. I formerly paid hundreds and got
less.

Finally I am seeing the fruits of divestiture. Granted, the Internet played
a big role in this, but I never thought I'd live to see the day when I could
make unlimited calls to anywhere for a set price. Combine that with my
cellular N/W and my ability to communicate free via Instant Messengers, and
I feel like a kid in a candy store.

And now Skype is running a $15/ANNUAL promotion. Life is good!

At 23 Jan 2007 11:52:51 -0500 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <45b63649$0$68949$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > But $8/month for exactly the same thing is even better.
> >
> > Sunrocket is $17/month. The half-price special is long over.
>
> No, it's a recurring thing.

It used to be a lot more recurring than it seems to be recently. I
haven't seen it since maybe last summer?

Usually when it is offered, it's a one-day only special, often, like you
said, on a holiday. I think I saw it last Easter and last July 4th.

Valentine's Day might be a good time to look if anyone's interested-
Sunrocket could easily pitch it as a "call your loved ones cheap"
promotion.

jeremy wrote:

> What is so bad with $25.00/month? Vonage's customers leave, according to
> industry reports, because they are unhappy with the call quality, not
> because of price.

$25 is more than what most people spend for their land line and long
distance combined. Remember, a great deal of long distance is now done
on off-peak or mobile to mobile cell phone minutes. Not free, but
included at no extra cost.

If someone really was cost sensitive and did a great deal of long
distance calling, then they'd choose a less expensive, and more capable
VOIP provider than Vonage.

Vonage ends up with a very small target market: people that make a lot
of long distance calls, have expensive landline service (every extra
feature on their landline such as call-waiting, caller-ID, three-way
calling, etc.), AND that believe the Vonage ads, rather than doing any
research prior to purchasing.

> Does Cingular price their wireless service to be competitive?

Yes.