Just noticed an unpleasant bit on this month's statement:
"Effective 3/30/08, AT&T will charge 20 cents for text/instant messags
and 30cents for picture video messages sent or received on a pay per
use basis."
The old rate for text was 15 cents.
I'm curious is this a lower rate for picture/video though. This
almost sounds semi reasonable.
At 21 Feb 2008 00:58:04 -0600 Todd H. wrote:
>
> Just noticed an unpleasant bit on this month's statement:
>
> "Effective 3/30/08, AT&T will charge 20 cents for text/instant messags
> and 30cents for picture video messages sent or received on a pay per
> use basis."
Pleasant or unpleasant depends on your POV- this rate change will likely
result in an opt-out option for contract customers.
> The old rate for text was 15 cents.
>
> I'm curious is this a lower rate for picture/video though. This
> almost sounds semi reasonable.
T-Mo did something similar last year. They went from $0.10 for SMS (text)
and $0.25 for MMS (pixture/video) to a $0.15 "unified" messaging charge for
either SMS or MMS.
While I've never been much of a texter, $0.15 hit the spot where I'll
occasionally send a pic or video via MMS rather than screw around with
cabling a phone to my PC!
Todd H. wrote:
> Just noticed an unpleasant bit on this month's statement:
>
> "Effective 3/30/08, AT&T will charge 20 cents for text/instant messags
> and 30cents for picture video messages sent or received on a pay per
> use basis."
>
>
> The old rate for text was 15 cents.
>
> I'm curious is this a lower rate for picture/video though. This
> almost sounds semi reasonable.
>
>
> --
> Todd H.
> http://toddh.net/
John Navas\
Well maybe you text too much, and your're not white...
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:58:04 -0600, t@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote in
<84skzmvls3@news.giganews.com>:
>Just noticed an unpleasant bit on this month's statement:
>
>"Effective 3/30/08, AT&T will charge 20 cents for text/instant messags
>and 30cents for picture video messages sent or received on a pay per
>use basis."
>
>The old rate for text was 15 cents.
>
>I'm curious is this a lower rate for picture/video though. This
>almost sounds semi reasonable.
Makes my old MEdia Works Unlimited package with 1500 SMS messages and
200 MMS messages look better and better.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
t@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote in news:84skzmvls3@news.giganews.com:
>
> Just noticed an unpleasant bit on this month's statement:
>
> "Effective 3/30/08, AT&T will charge 20 cents for text/instant messags
> and 30cents for picture video messages sent or received on a pay per
> use basis."
>
>
> The old rate for text was 15 cents.
>
> I'm curious is this a lower rate for picture/video though. This
> almost sounds semi reasonable.
>
>
> --
> Todd H.
> http://toddh.net/
>
Why not? It was ALREADY the highest cost data transfer on the planet. If
they'll pay $961.54/megabyte, they'll pay $1282.05 for text and I don't
know what data size to base the video calculation on. Text messages are
156 bytes.
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:25:25 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
<Xns9A4B7F3009278noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>:
>These prices easily qualify as usury.
Then don't pay them. Simple. If enough people do that, then prices
will come down. That's how a market works. And it's not "usury" in any
event, since that only applies to a high rate of interest.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:25:25 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
> <Xns9A4B7F3009278noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>:
>
>>These prices easily qualify as usury.
>
> Then don't pay them. Simple. If enough people do that, then prices
> will come down.
Extremely unlikely. A text message costs them so little that they can make
outrageous profits if they cause a 99.99% drop in texting.
Todd H. wrote:
> Just noticed an unpleasant bit on this month's statement:
>
> "Effective 3/30/08, AT&T will charge 20 cents for text/instant messags
> and 30cents for picture video messages sent or received on a pay per
> use basis."
>
>
> The old rate for text was 15 cents.
Ouch. Verizon is sure to follow with a similar increase. Clearly the
carriers are going to continue to raise texting rates until they can get
enough subscribers to sign up for a monthly texting plan which greatly
increases the ARPU.
I turned off texting on our phones as I was getting too many junk text
messages. At 5¢ it was no big deal, at 15¢ it was a bigger deal.
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:17:04 -0600, clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in
<0qr095-u56.ln1@remote.clifto.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:25:25 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
>> <Xns9A4B7F3009278noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>:
>>
>>>These prices easily qualify as usury.
>>
>> Then don't pay them. Simple. If enough people do that, then prices
>> will come down.
>
>Extremely unlikely. A text message costs them so little that they can make
>outrageous profits if they cause a 99.99% drop in texting.
Only on a percentage basis. The absolute drop in margin would still be
a big negative.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:17:04 -0600, clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in
> <0qr095-u56.ln1@remote.clifto.com>:
>>John Navas wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:25:25 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
>>> <Xns9A4B7F3009278noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>:
>>>
>>>>These prices easily qualify as usury.
>>>
>>> Then don't pay them. Simple. If enough people do that, then prices
>>> will come down.
>>
>>Extremely unlikely. A text message costs them so little that they can make
>>outrageous profits if they cause a 99.99% drop in texting.
>
> Only on a percentage basis. The absolute drop in margin would still be
> a big negative.
They'd make more money charging 5 cents per text message and keeping all
their customers than losing 99% of texters. They won't do either, and
eventually people will wise up and get alpha pagers.
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:37:07 -0600, clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in
<j04195-bj7.ln1@remote.clifto.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:17:04 -0600, clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in
>> <0qr095-u56.ln1@remote.clifto.com>:
>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:25:25 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
>>>> <Xns9A4B7F3009278noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>:
>>>>
>>>>>These prices easily qualify as usury.
>>>>
>>>> Then don't pay them. Simple. If enough people do that, then prices
>>>> will come down.
>>>
>>>Extremely unlikely. A text message costs them so little that they can make
>>>outrageous profits if they cause a 99.99% drop in texting.
>>
>> Only on a percentage basis. The absolute drop in margin would still be
>> a big negative.
>
>They'd make more money charging 5 cents per text message and keeping all
>their customers than losing 99% of texters. They won't do either, and
>eventually people will wise up and get alpha pagers.
I don't think alpha pagers are going to come back. I suspect more
people will sign up for text packages, which I think is the ultimate
objective of the carriers.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in news:j04195-bj7.ln1@remote.clifto.com:
> They'd make more money charging 5 cents per text message and keeping
all
> their customers than losing 99% of texters. They won't do either, and
> eventually people will wise up and get alpha pagers.
>
>
There's hardly any pager companies left, any more.
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:vaprr39fd9tg0ckdn18opcen38ohn9s90g@4ax.com:
> I don't think alpha pagers are going to come back.
That's really too bad, too. The old POCSAG code coming out of 12 500
watt Quintron beasts on the same frequency had seriously more range and
better coverage than any cellular and had amazing penetration in
buildings and tunnels.
I get a kick out of hospitals with 'NO CELLULAR PHONES' signs all over to
protect patients and monitoring. Too funny. We had 4 UHF and VHF beasts
right on top of the building blasting a constant stream of high powered
RF into the buildings so all the doctors' pagers would have SOLID
coverage, even in lead-lined rooms in radiac. No heart patients knew the
difference. One of the UHF transmitters was on the 800 Mhz paging band
very close to the Sellphone band.
Those were great times. Every prostitute in town was our customers...
(c
> They'd make more money charging 5 cents per text message and keeping all
> their customers than losing 99% of texters. They won't do either, and
> eventually people will wise up and get alpha pagers.
Oh, geez, yet another device to carry around.
In reality the carriers know that enough subscribers will decide to pay
for a texting package to offset the losses from those that will just
stop texting completely at the higher rates.
SMS wrote:
> clifto wrote:
>> They'd make more money charging 5 cents per text message and keeping all
>> their customers than losing 99% of texters. They won't do either, and
>> eventually people will wise up and get alpha pagers.
>
> Oh, geez, yet another device to carry around.
IIRC it's cheaper than a message plan and unlimited to boot. I used to carry
two and would again if I had much use for texting. I was disgruntled enough
at two cents per received message that I didn't use it much, and you can bet
that at twenty cents per message it's emergency-only communication for me.
"Ernie" <frustrated.user@nowhere.now> wrote in message
news:7c8sr3pteo4iub8d4mgajumn39va9u0ij9@4ax.com...
>
> But, after calling AT&T Customer Service about Spam text messages, I
> was told they have a new "Smart Text" plan .. where I could specify
> which phone numbers I would accept text messages .. for an additional
> $4.99/month ...
That's priceless! I expect they'll offer a similar $4.99 add-on that
credits you for wrong numbers soon! ;-)
I often wonder if cell carriers are trying to wring every cent out of
texting while they can- as smartphones become more commonplace, I wonder if
push e-mail will replace texting. Why would I MMS a picture or video from
my smartphone to my wife's at $0.25 each direction when I can simply e-mail
it as an attachment from my push account to hers?
I looked at the SMS account on my phone, and the last text I sent was back
in November! (It was a reply to a text I was sent from a buddy without a
smartphone.)
Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>
> "Ernie" <frustrated.user@nowhere.now> wrote in message
> news:7c8sr3pteo4iub8d4mgajumn39va9u0ij9@4ax.com...
>>
>> But, after calling AT&T Customer Service about Spam text messages, I
>> was told they have a new "Smart Text" plan .. where I could specify
>> which phone numbers I would accept text messages .. for an additional
>> $4.99/month ...
>
> That's priceless! I expect they'll offer a similar $4.99 add-on that
> credits you for wrong numbers soon! ;-)
Hey, this is AT&T after all. They learned about this sort of fee decades
ago when they began charging subscribers to not print their name and
number in the telephone directory (though originally there was some
justification for the charge because directory assistance was free and
unlisted numbers caused more DA calls).
Does AT&T have something similar to Verizon where you can specify a
nickname (nickname@vtext.com) and only accept text messages sent to that
nickname? You give out your nickname to those that you'll accept text
messages from, but you make it unique enough that no one would guess it
otherwise.
> Does AT&T have something similar to Verizon where you can specify
> a nickname (nickname@vtext.com) and only accept text messages
> sent to that nickname?
I don't know. T-Mo does the nickname thing, but it's simply an alias- they
"can't" (translation: won't) block messages sent to the numeric address.
In fact, unlike Verizon, T-Mo "can't" (won't) disable texts on any account.
T-Mo was just hit with a class-action suit a couple of weeks ago by
disgruntled lawyers, er, um, customers who are tired of paying for spam
texts, despite begging T-Mo to disable texting on their accounts entirely.
"Todd H." <t@toddh.net> wrote in message
news:84skzmvls3@news.giganews.com...
>
> Just noticed an unpleasant bit on this month's statement:
>
> "Effective 3/30/08, AT&T will charge 20 cents for text/instant messags
> and 30cents for picture video messages sent or received on a pay per
> use basis."
>
>
> The old rate for text was 15 cents.
>
> I'm curious is this a lower rate for picture/video though. This
> almost sounds semi reasonable.
On my one year old plan I was being charged 10 cents for txt, 25 cents for
pictures.
With the voice price war heating up, revenue mining will probably shift to
txt and media.
> IIRC it's cheaper than a message plan and unlimited to boot. I used to carry
> two and would again if I had much use for texting. I was disgruntled enough
> at two cents per received message that I didn't use it much, and you can bet
> that at twenty cents per message it's emergency-only communication for me.
The solution is obviously to get a PagePlus phone, where text messages
are as little as 3.5¢ each.
SMS wrote:
> clifto wrote:
>
>> IIRC it's cheaper than a message plan and unlimited to boot. I used to
>> carry
>> two and would again if I had much use for texting. I was disgruntled
>> enough
>> at two cents per received message that I didn't use it much, and you
>> can bet
>> that at twenty cents per message it's emergency-only communication for
>> me.
>
> The solution is obviously to get a PagePlus phone, where text messages
> are as little as 3.5¢ each.
Argh, sorry, I didn't realize that Navas had pulled his newsgroup
removal crap fro the original poster's post. I've added back
alt.cellular.attws added. Please be aware that if you choose to reply to
a Navas post, that he often will remove all newsgroups other than
alt.cellular.cingular from his follow-ups. Please go back to the
original post in the thread and see which newsgroups it was posted to,
and add back the deleted newsgroups.
I should also add that the 3.5¢ rate is only on "regular" PagePlus
service when you buy the $80/1400 minute card at a discounted price. If
you're on the PagePlus unlimited plan ($2.49/day) then text messages are
15¢ each, the same as on Verizon (for now, until Verizon matches AT&T's
price increase to 20¢ each).
I wonder how long it'll be until PagePlus decides to raise their texting
rates. They say that they charge 8¢, but that's in "PagePlus money." An
$80 PagePlus card costs $73.72 and buys you 1400 12¢ minutes, or $168 in
"PagePlus money." Each text message then costs 8¢*$73.72/$168=3.5¢. As
with T-Mobile, the most economical strategy with PagePlus is to buy one
high value card, then buy the lower value cards periodically (every 4
months on PagePlus) to keep your account active.
SMS wrote:
> clifto wrote:
>
>> IIRC it's cheaper than a message plan and unlimited to boot. I used to carry
>> two and would again if I had much use for texting. I was disgruntled enough
>> at two cents per received message that I didn't use it much, and you can bet
>> that at twenty cents per message it's emergency-only communication for me.
>
> The solution is obviously to get a PagePlus phone, where text messages
> are as little as 3.5¢ each.
I have two StarTAC phones being groomed for just that right now. Are there
meatspace stores that sell the PagePlus stuff?
"clifto" <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:iod995-b2c.ln1@remote.clifto.com...
> SMS wrote:
>> clifto wrote:
>>
>>> IIRC it's cheaper than a message plan and unlimited to boot. I used to
>>> carry
>>> two and would again if I had much use for texting. I was disgruntled
>>> enough
>>> at two cents per received message that I didn't use it much, and you can
>>> bet
>>> that at twenty cents per message it's emergency-only communication for
>>> me.
>>
>> The solution is obviously to get a PagePlus phone, where text messages
>> are as little as 3.5¢ each.
>
> I have two StarTAC phones being groomed for just that right now. Are there
> meatspace stores that sell the PagePlus stuff?
PagePlus allows StarTAC Phones to be used ? Are you sure about that ?
As they use Verizon I figured Verizon would not allow it.
"Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:y8owj.16489$0w.731@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net ...
> "clifto" <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> I have two StarTAC phones being groomed for just that right now. Are
>> there
>> meatspace stores that sell the PagePlus stuff?
>
> PagePlus allows StarTAC Phones to be used ? Are you sure about that ?
> As they use Verizon I figured Verizon would not allow it.
>
> Interesting.
Page Plus doesn't seem to require that phones they activate be GPS-enabled.
I suspect they activate such a small number of phones (relatively) that
Verizon doesn't enforce it for MVNOs. (The FCC requires that 95% of the
phones on a carriers' network be E911 compatible. I suspect Page Plus total
number of activations doesn't represent 5/100ths of a percent of Verizon's
users!) ;-)
As long as the StarTACs in question are CDMA and able to be programmed
(either OTA or manually) to work on Verizon, PP will activate them.
Text messaging rates increaase by 33% 
Linear Mode
