How come cell phone plans are not getting cheaper

[neutralizer]

Originally posted by: preslove
I also dislike how you have to sign up for 2 years on any new plan. I don't want that kind of commitment. What if I move to a place with terrible reception?

When I got my service with T-mobile, they looked up the areas where I frequent to show me the coverage.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Platypus

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: j00fek

Originally posted by: Platypus
because telcos are greedy as fvck?

:thumbsup:

Eh... yeah, they want to make a profit like every other business. They're facing a lot of competition from VOIP providers, and they're investing billions in infrastructure to remain competitive. But if they want to make a few bucks off cell phone service, they're greedy.

This argument is always good for a laugh, it's impossible to accuse any capitalistic business of being greedy without someone saying 'that's the point of business.'

Kind of makes you wonder... doesn't it?

It's always good for a laugh when some guy on the Internet thinks he knows how much something SHOULD cost.

In reality they're just nickel and diming you for stuff that shouldn't cost as much as it does, like broadband access. Look at other countries in the world who have actually adopted a standard instead of bucking the trend like the US always tends to do with international standards. There's just no reason to be paying that much. How is it fair for the customer to foot the bill for newer technologies that they don't want and simply don't use?

Eh... there's what, a half dozen MAJOR wireless providers? That's a large enough group that you have a choice. A cell phone is far from a necessity anyway, it's a luxury item. Complaining about the price is kind of silly.

I'm all for companies making a profit and I certainly don't assert that they should operate at a loss so we have cheap service but honestly, it's a bit ridiculous.

Er... ok. I'm not going to bother to look this info up, but do you have anything that shows that wireless providers make disproportionately high profits?

 

[jersiq]

Originally posted by: Fritzo
They could be cheaper, but they don't want them to be. They COULD offer you service for $10/month if they wanted, but they wouldn't make much profit. Notice how your package comes with caller ID, call waiting, 3 way calling, conference calling, etc etc included? You think these services are free? Well, they're free for the company, but YOU pay for them. Some old ladies in New York sued Verizon over these unwanted features because they just wanted basic phone service. Not sure if they won or not, but the point is they pad the price with features to make it seem like it should cost that much, when in reality it doesn't need to.

Free... when you can explain how any of these services work, you would hardly see that these options occur at a cost to the company.

agree, paying for minutes is ridiculous. plans should all be fixed prices for unlimited calls like land lines.

The last time I checked, you paid for long distance calls on your landline, even if the person lives in the same area code.

 

[Insane3D]

<---Still has no cell phone...

Other than portability, I just don't see what cell phones offer. They charge you for incoming and outgoing calls, voice quality is nowhere near VOIP or a land line, and they are prone to dropping calls. You also are at the mercy of the coverage in your area.

*shrug*

 

[Baked]

Few providers, lots of customers, and even more people who talk endlessly on their cell phone, resulting in overcharges every month. If you have so many cash cows, why change the plan?

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: jersiq

Originally posted by: Fritzo
They could be cheaper, but they don't want them to be. They COULD offer you service for $10/month if they wanted, but they wouldn't make much profit. Notice how your package comes with caller ID, call waiting, 3 way calling, conference calling, etc etc included? You think these services are free? Well, they're free for the company, but YOU pay for them. Some old ladies in New York sued Verizon over these unwanted features because they just wanted basic phone service. Not sure if they won or not, but the point is they pad the price with features to make it seem like it should cost that much, when in reality it doesn't need to.

Free... when you can explain how any of these services work, you would hardly see that these options occur at a cost to the company.

agree, paying for minutes is ridiculous. plans should all be fixed prices for unlimited calls like land lines.

The last time I checked, you paid for long distance calls on your landline, even if the person lives in the same area code.

In the days of yore, the digital features came at a cost to the company. But now with digital switches, the extra 30 bytes of caller ID data at the beginning of a call isn't costing them a damned thing. 3-way and conference calling DO cost, but only because more than one virtual circuit is opened - again, because we're utilizing virtual circuits on a digital network, it's only a small increase in utilization (it's no longer a 100% increase for a 3-way, more along the lines of 80-90%), but that's still enough to warrent paying for those features.

Increased equipment cost is moot - you can't buy a telco-grade, FCC-approved switch that doesn't support all those features. Hell, you can barely buy a PBX that doesn't support those features.

 

[jersiq]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: jersiq

Originally posted by: Fritzo
They could be cheaper, but they don't want them to be. They COULD offer you service for $10/month if they wanted, but they wouldn't make much profit. Notice how your package comes with caller ID, call waiting, 3 way calling, conference calling, etc etc included? You think these services are free? Well, they're free for the company, but YOU pay for them. Some old ladies in New York sued Verizon over these unwanted features because they just wanted basic phone service. Not sure if they won or not, but the point is they pad the price with features to make it seem like it should cost that much, when in reality it doesn't need to.

Free... when you can explain how any of these services work, you would hardly see that these options occur at a cost to the company.

agree, paying for minutes is ridiculous. plans should all be fixed prices for unlimited calls like land lines.

The last time I checked, you paid for long distance calls on your landline, even if the person lives in the same area code.

In the days of yore, the digital features came at a cost to the company. But now with digital switches, the extra 30 bytes of caller ID data at the beginning of a call isn't costing them a damned thing. 3-way and conference calling DO cost, but only because more than one virtual circuit is opened - again, because we're utilizing virtual circuits on a digital network, it's only a small increase in utilization (it's no longer a 100% increase for a 3-way, more along the lines of 80-90%), but that's still enough to warrent paying for those features.

Increased equipment cost is moot - you can't buy a telco-grade, FCC-approved switch that doesn't support all those features. Hell, you can barely buy a PBX that doesn't support those features.

Virtual circuits? Not when you have a remote 5ESS homed off an ECP that does not exist within the same building. Increased equipment cost? Our latest 4 port CHOC-3 card cost in the neighborhood of 250,000, which only yielded an OC-12 of capacity. Just the switching to the PSTN alone costs alot of money. Protected OC-48's in a ring config don't come cheap, which some of these feature use. That doesn't even touch on call delivery, maintenance, echo, Building Power, provisioning,etc. Do you think you just throw a switch in a building and hope it takes care of itself?

Call scenario for you:
Caller A is roaming in California when caller B who is roaming in New York calls. I can count 6 trunks in that scenario. Your argument is only valid if everyone is homed off the exact same switch, even in which case you still end up utilizing more than you think.
Landline switches are not the same as Mobile Telephone switches.

 

[jadinolf]

Originally posted by: johnnytightlips
illegal immigrants

Yep they all have cells.

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: jersiq

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: jersiq

Originally posted by: Fritzo
They could be cheaper, but they don't want them to be. They COULD offer you service for $10/month if they wanted, but they wouldn't make much profit. Notice how your package comes with caller ID, call waiting, 3 way calling, conference calling, etc etc included? You think these services are free? Well, they're free for the company, but YOU pay for them. Some old ladies in New York sued Verizon over these unwanted features because they just wanted basic phone service. Not sure if they won or not, but the point is they pad the price with features to make it seem like it should cost that much, when in reality it doesn't need to.

Free... when you can explain how any of these services work, you would hardly see that these options occur at a cost to the company.

agree, paying for minutes is ridiculous. plans should all be fixed prices for unlimited calls like land lines.

The last time I checked, you paid for long distance calls on your landline, even if the person lives in the same area code.

In the days of yore, the digital features came at a cost to the company. But now with digital switches, the extra 30 bytes of caller ID data at the beginning of a call isn't costing them a damned thing. 3-way and conference calling DO cost, but only because more than one virtual circuit is opened - again, because we're utilizing virtual circuits on a digital network, it's only a small increase in utilization (it's no longer a 100% increase for a 3-way, more along the lines of 80-90%), but that's still enough to warrent paying for those features.

Increased equipment cost is moot - you can't buy a telco-grade, FCC-approved switch that doesn't support all those features. Hell, you can barely buy a PBX that doesn't support those features.

Virtual circuits? Not when you have a remote 5ESS homed off an ECP that does not exist within the same building. Increased equipment cost? Our latest 4 port CHOC-3 card cost in the neighborhood of 250,000, which only yielded an OC-12 of capacity. Just the switching to the PSTN alone costs alot of money. Protected OC-48's in a ring config don't come cheap, which some of these feature use. That doesn't even touch on call delivery, maintenance, echo, Building Power, provisioning,etc. Do you think you just throw a switch in a building and hope it takes care of itself?

Call scenario for you:
Caller A is roaming in California when caller B who is roaming in New York calls. I can count 6 trunks in that scenario. Your argument is only valid if everyone is homed off the exact same switch, even in which case you still end up utilizing more than you think.
Landline switches are not the same as Mobile Telephone switches.

I was speaking of the PSTN, not the mobile networks. I know the mobile end of things gets raped for cost. But the quote appeared to be referring to Verizon landline service, and I replied in kind.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: SirChadwick

Originally posted by: preslove
I also dislike how you have to sign up for 2 years on any new plan. I don't want that kind of commitment. What if I move to a place with terrible reception?

They normally let you get out of it as long as its within 30 days of receiving your phone/service. If you move and reception is bad... you have to basically complain every day until they let you out of your contract.

Not necessarily -- Cingular offered to let us out of our contract, since we moved to a non-Cingular area...we have some service, but apparently it's costing them a fortune. :evil:

 

[fitzov]

I haven't seen the charts, but I'd be willing to bet that sales continue to increase while price remains relatively the same. Undoubtedly the telcos have an agreement where they won't be overly competetive with one another.