Slashdot Mirror


Wal-Mart To Launch Unlimited Wireless Family Plan

adeelarshad82 writes "Wal-Mart has announced that it will sell a post-paid wireless service powered by T-Mobile, which will be targeted at families. Users who sign up for Wal-Mart Family Mobile service will not have to sign a contract. The first line will cost $45 per month, and each additional line will cost $25 per month. Each line will have unlimited talk and text, so overage charges will not be an issue. For data access, each phone will come pre-loaded with a 100MB card known as a WebPak, which is shared among all lines on an account. Data does not expire, and refill cards can be purchased in Wal-Mart stores or online. The WebPak can also be used to make international calls at 5 cents per minute to any landline number in about a dozen countries."

53 of 278 comments (clear)

  1. Families? by mangu · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't know why, but this "Family" thing in the name of the service makes me think of censorship.

    On-line games will be certified to be non-violent and you will not be allowed to download Heavy Metal music, I suppose.

    1. Re:Families? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Funny

      Are you in the right thread? Wait... lemme guess.. your autopilot saw the words 'Walmart', 'Wireless', and 'Family" and you thought you had a cheap +3 Insightful. Right?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    2. Re:Families? by iammani · · Score: 4, Informative

      I dont want made you associate Family with Censorship. Family refers to purchasing in packs of more than 1. There used be a pepsi family 4-pack. Publix used to have a family pack bread. And all wireless providers offer family plans (none of which currently censor anything)

    3. Re:Families? by KazW · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right, it wouldn't be because "Family" is synonymous with "group"? I have a family plan with a wireless provider, and guess what? It's for a group of phones.

      What would be more interesting is if they are offering parental controls to the account holder.

      --
      Geeks don't grock information, they grep it.
    4. Re:Families? by Andorin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > I dont want made you associate Family with Censorship.
      It's not the GP's fault. Just think of the wide usage of the term "family-friendly" to mean "hostile to anything that could potentially offend someone."

      I don't see why he got modded Troll.

      --
      That Anonymous Coward guy is pretty annoying. Can we have the government censor him or something?
    5. Re:Families? by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Funny

      At least that's better than what I read the first time. I saw "Wal-Mart to launch unlimited wireless Family Guy plan".

    6. Re:Families? by Nerdfest · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wonder if you can buy condoms in "family packs"?

    7. Re:Families? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2, Insightful

      'Family' has now become a political codeword to mean 'Social conservative.' Look at Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, various state Family Policy Councils, etc. It's a convenient shorthand that allows for describing the organisations political views with a fair level of accuracy in a single word, but at the expense of tainting the word in other uses.

  2. Any way to bypass Bentonville? by sethstorm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For the many of us who don't want to pay for their legal and PR team(or fund a China-backed company), is there a way to go to a more direct source (e.g. T-Mobile?)?

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:Any way to bypass Bentonville? by tool462 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Individual
      http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/plans/Cell-Phone-Plans.aspx?catgroup=Individual&WT.z_unav=mst_shop_plans_individual

      Family
      http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/plans/Cell-Phone-Plans.aspx?catgroup=Family

      The Even More Plus plan is the contract free version similar to the Walmart option. Looks like you get to pay ~$5/mo extra per line to avoid Walmart and deal with T-Mo directly, however.

    2. Re:Any way to bypass Bentonville? by quenda · · Score: 5, Insightful

      (or fund a China-backed company),

      Get over it. You live in a China-backed country. Who do you think is buying all those worthless 30-year T-bonds? China is, so Americans can keep going to WalMart and keep the Chinese factories in business.

    3. Re:Any way to bypass Bentonville? by theaveng · · Score: 3, Informative

      Cricket Broadband is only $40 a month, although not unlimited (high-speed changes to low-speed after 5 gigabytes).

      VirginMobile offers cheap phone service for only $5 a month (25 minutes plus 20 cents each add'l minute) or $25 (300 minutes and unlimited texting).

      For once Walmart is not the cheapest option.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    4. Re:Any way to bypass Bentonville? by schmiddy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mod parent up. The Wal-Mart deal isn't actually that good, considering the offerings from Virgin Mobile, and Cricket. Not to mention Boost Mobile ($50 for unlimited everything, last I checked) and Metro PCS (similar unlimited pricing).

      Personally, I keep my cell phone bill down around $10/month using prepaid minutes from T-Mobile. I've got an Android phone (G1, only $100 on eBay) and I can use sipdroid on it, combined with Google Voice and a free POTS->SIP accounts, for free minutes when I'm on wifi, which is most of the time.

      Just stay the fuck away from AT&T and the other gorillas trying to lock you into overpriced 2-year plans and you'll do fine. Cell prices are finally coming down.

      --
      http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
  3. What's the catch? by MadAhab · · Score: 2

    It sounds like a fairly good deal for the US and for more, uh, parsimonious consumers.

    As phone and text, it's great, IOW. And that's where the usage seems to be for lower end consumers.

    Probably not for the average ./er's kind of data consumption, but still a welcome addition to the US mobile market.

    --
    Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
  4. Re:Sounds to me like... by sethstorm · · Score: 2, Informative

    Problem is that it has very limited data @ 100MB. Cue the "100MB is enough for the target market" folks.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  5. What saddens me the most... by Pollux · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...Is that the company I despise the most in this country is the one that came up with the smartest mobile phone plan.

    Really, why can't any of the big-name mobile carriers come out with a no-nonsense plan with affordable rates like this one? We've been screaming for years for mobile plans w/o contracts, w/o hidden fees, w/o metered rates, and w/o surprises that come with the end-of-the-month bill. Why did it take Walmart to figure out what the consumer wanted? Hell, if T-Mobile could just sell this exact plan sans Walmart, I'd jump on it in half-a-heartbeat.

    1. Re:What saddens me the most... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Somehow I doubt Wal-Mart is going to drive AT&T and Verizon out of the wireless marketplace.....

      Besides, the criticism that you've made applies more to Barnes and Noble than Wal-Mart. I've not personally observed Wal-Mart raising their prices after driving the competition away. I did observe Barnes and Noble jack up all their prices shortly after the last independent book store in my home town closed up shop.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:What saddens me the most... by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not just about power - it's also about selling the cards in [Wal-Mart's] brick-and-mortar and online stores gets your eyeballs on their other offerings.

    3. Re:What saddens me the most... by L3370 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm having a difficult time hating wal-mart on this issue.

      On one hand we have Walmart--a company known for undercutting their competitors and forcing everyone in their supply chain to work for peanuts...On the other we have a small collection of telecom giants forcing the U.S. market to pay inflated prices because of the lack of real competition.
      Sometimes walmart puts up a necessary fight. Imagine what the music industry would be charging for a Ke$ha album if it wasn't for walmart's influence. Yeah $10-15 is still overpaying, but if the music industry had their way this garbage would probably be selling for $20-25USD today.

      Yes walmart has a nasty track record of unfair competitive practices. But in this instance I think walmart has correctly identified a discrepancy in market pricing, and is now using its dominant position to profit and steer the industry in a more healthy direction

    4. Re:What saddens me the most... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm glad you mentioned books.

      I won't claim to be a Wal-Mart expert, I've been round a few of them when I visited the US on several occasions but that's it. However, what I saw didn't seem to be a whole lot different to Tesco or Asda (owned by Wal-Mart) over here.

      But have you not noticed how you can only buy the most popular-selling books, magazines, music, DVDs, etc. in the superstores?

      There's a well-known saying that "20% of the product range makes 80% of the profits" and, in many cases, high sales of certain items acts as a subsidy to less popular items being produced and sold.

      So the supermarket stocks the high-volume stuff only but manages to suck away most of the profits from, say, a specialist bookshop by stocking a smaller range of books. That in turn means that the outlets for less popular titles are reduced and leads to them being non-profitable to the point where they're not made any more.

      This idea that supermarket price-cutting is in the interests of the consumer or that the supermarkets offer more choice is a complete fallacy - they stock the high profit, high volume sales items with a strategy to force consumers to just buy those items they stock.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    5. Re:What saddens me the most... by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But have you not noticed how you can only buy the most popular-selling books, magazines, music, DVDs, etc. in the superstores?

      Well, duh. The superstores are general stores. They don't have the shelf space to stock every conceivable title or product. That's why you go to a real book/clothing/electronics/whatever store.

      they stock the high profit, high volume sales items with a strategy to force consumers to just buy those items they stock.

      You aren't forced to do anything as a consumer unless you are too lazy to look for alternatives. Heck, this is the information age -- you can be lazy and shop at the same time if you have a computer, internet connection and credit card.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:What saddens me the most... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, duh. The superstores are general stores. They don't have the shelf space to stock every conceivable title or product. That's why you go to a real book/clothing/electronics/whatever store.

      Well, double duh. It works like this - a supermarket stocks a limited range of the highest selling items (20% of a range makes 80% of profits) and sells them at a lower price than a local specialist store. This takes most of the profit away from the specialist store so it closes. This leaves a supermarket selling a small range of items, albeit at a lower cost. And they do that *BECAUSE* they don't have the shelf space to stock a wider range.

      You aren't forced to do anything as a consumer unless you are too lazy to look for alternatives. Heck, this is the information age -- you can be lazy and shop at the same time if you have a computer, internet connection and credit card.....

      For your information, I've done *PRECISELY* that, at least when it comes to fresh foodstuffs. In case you didn't pick it up before, I'm in the UK so don't have the same scales of distance you have in the US but, being an avid cook at home, I wanted better tasting fresh food to eat rather than the stuff in supermarkets - so for a while now I've been buying all my fresh meat, vegetables and fruit from local farm shops.

      No, it's not "green" because I've had to travel further to them and, kilo for kilo, it's more expensive than in a supermarket. But overall our food budget has dropped because I'm not filling the trolley with "2 for 1" offers that I don't need and the food tastes better because it's locally produced, local varieties suitable for the climate and soil conditions, and hasn't travelled so far. But I have been more creative with my cooking, eaten far more healthily and wasted virtually nothing.

      I don't claim to be some kind of saint, I still buy washing powder, mouthwash, toilet rolls, etc. from the local supermarket but, then, boycotting them completely was never my aim - I just wanted better tasting fresh food and to put some money back into the local economy.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    7. Re:What saddens me the most... by log0n · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...

      Because Walmart has always known what the [American] consumer wanted. If it didn't, it wouldn't be the force that it is.

      People want cheaper cost with minimum fuss. That's what Walmart does.. cheap, minimum fuss. For most consumers, everything else is almost always a secondary consideration to price. We put up with the dingy environment, we put up with the slackjawed nametags roaming the store because it ultimately keeps more $$ in our pocket.

    8. Re:What saddens me the most... by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've not personally observed Wal-Mart raising their prices after driving the competition away

      Just wait until they actually drive away their competition. They're general retail; wait until there's no other retailers.

      Then when prices are jacked up, there's an opportunity for competition driving prices down again. I don't know of a place that has a Walmart but not a Target, a Sam's Club but not a Costco. There's Aldi and Amazon too. Last week I bought an item from a local store but after seeing Amazon selling it a lot cheaper, with "free shipping", I returned it.

      Falcon

  6. Stop Sleepwalking! by pandrijeczko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why do people have so much difficulty in looking beyond the pounds/dollars/euros that they're saving in order to see what these huge retailers are trying to do?

    In the UK, our biggest supermarket is Tesco with Asda (owned by Wal-Mart) in second place. Now that these companies have trashed any form of local retailer, they have to expand into new areas to swell their profits; this is why they now offer mobile phones, home insurance, pharmaceuticals and even home mortgages in some instances.

    When is the populace going to wake up & realise that cheap is not necessarily best? These companies will not be satisfied until you use them for everything you need, right from birth to death - yet they also pay minimum wages & have dubious practices when it comes to employee rights.

    Wake up, people!

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    1. Re:Stop Sleepwalking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "When is the populace going to wake up & realise that cheap is not necessarily best?"

      When we get paid enough that the more expensive options are actually viable?

    2. Re:Stop Sleepwalking! by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah screw Walmart... I am sticking with the little guy for my wireless service!

      So I guess thats... AT&T??? Er no wait... must be Verizon. Wait...

    3. Re:Stop Sleepwalking! by pandrijeczko · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Look at the bigger picture & it is very disturbing... the destruction of local businesses, extinction of local varieties of fruit & vegetables.

      Plus here in the UK, our corrupt local authorities taking (in effect) backhand bribes when it comes to granting building permissions for hypermarkets. Not to mention the fact that they levied parking charges in town centres where local businesses used to thrive but nobody did anything about taxing the hypermarkets with their acres of free parking for customers.

      And whilst I believe obesity is, in most cases, about lack of self control, it's startling to see that the countries with the highest obesity problems are those that have let hypermarkets run rife with stores full of processed & preprepared foodstuffs - UK, Germany, USA...

      The Czech Republic is also climbing the "Europe's Fattest Nations" lists at the same time as our biggest retailer, Tesco, is expanding into it...

      And France and Italy, who have refused to bow to the hypermarkets, happen to have the lowest obesity problems in Europe...

      It's more than a coincidence.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    4. Re:Stop Sleepwalking! by DwySteve · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now that these companies have trashed any form of local retailer, they have to expand into new areas to swell their profits; this is why they now offer mobile phones, home insurance, pharmaceuticals and even home mortgages in some instances.

      When is the populace going to wake up & realise that cheap is not necessarily best? >

      I come at this from a different angle. I grew up in a town that was 20 minutes from a city. There were towns farther out that were an hour or two from anything worthwhile.

      Living in these places SUCKS!

      Everyone keeps going on about 'mom and pop' and 'buy local' but the experience I've had with local businesses in places like these is that they get away with charging obscene prices because they're the only game in town. Milk - costs more at the local mom and pop store because you have to drive 20 minutes in any direction to find a competitor. Gas? Same deal. And the selection is awful. You get whatever they give you and nothing more. People would drive an hour to get to a real store - a Walmart or a Target or a Best Buy - and stock up for a week or weeks at a time. Driving an hour to get a better price on gas when filling up your 100 gallon tank was justified.

      So Walmart comes around and wants to build a store in your podunk town and suddenly hippes and 'progressives' from the city are telling you to oppose it because it 'destroys local business'. What? Mom and pop were trying to destroy us slowly with high prices and terrible selection for years, and now someone wants us to help them out because Walmart comes in and charges us a reasonable price for something? AND has a better selection? No thank you.

      You know what else you get with a Walmart? It's a little slice of civilization compared to what you can find out there. That odd DVD rental machine in the front? A Godsend to someone who has no video rental store. And the faux bank where you can cash checks, send money, and have your taxes done in season? Compared to what was on offer before there was Walmart it's amazing. You go to a Wal-Mart in Chicago, Los Angeles, or Walcott Iowa and it's always the same - same selection, same prices, no favoritism, no prejudice no bullshit. They just sell you things.

      So now they do cell phones too? If you live in a city, yeah, it's superfluous. If you live in the middle of nowhere it's another Godsend (as long as your nowhere has T-Mobile anyway). To have a place that will sell you something for a fair price and give you a decent selection of phones? Listen, you all may take it for granted, but plenty of people don't live in Chicago or New York or Los Angeles. They have significantly fewer options and Wal-Mart is on the whole a positive for them.

      --
      http://angryee.blogspot.com
    5. Re:Stop Sleepwalking! by Z34107 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      WalMart exists because ShopKo, Target, Kohl's, J.C. Penny's, Sears Roebuck, Toys "R" Us, etc. had ridiculous markups. These were all large companies leveraging their size to extract higher margins than they'd in anything resembling a competitive market. WalMart's been growing since they were called "Walton's Five and Dime" simply because they didn't gouge consumers.

      Are you really shocked that a retail store is expanding their inventory? Is it a crime to stock more than five different kinds of potato chips or something? Are you surprised that a greeter gets paid minimum wage? What makes a WalMart cashier better than a cashier anywhere else? Or better than a fry chef? Or better than a stock boy? Any place I worked up through graduation paid minimum wage, and working most anywhere beats working in food service.

      So why all the outrage? Anyone else forcing all their competitors to compete would be a hero. I hope they start their own music label while they're at it. Maybe in their spare time they can write an operating system.

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    6. Re:Stop Sleepwalking! by bnenning · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And that system used to work because people used to spend a higher proportion of their incomes than they do now.

      Well yes, and apparently most customers didn't think spending so much of their income on food was as wonderful as you do. It's very unlikely that grocery stores are involved in a huge conspiracy to force everyone to eat worse food. They'd probably much prefer to sell higher-quality higher-margin products because they'd earn more profits; Whole Foods does exactly that. But amazingly it turns out that different people have different price/quality tradeoffs, and I don't see how any of them are objectively wrong.

      And what will they stock up on? Processed foods that have long shelf lives

      And they shouldn't have that choice?

      You're missing the point because you do not accept that foodstuffs are *TOO* cheap, that's the problem.

      Right. And I'm sure that if the stores raised their prices to the "proper" level, you would not at all be complaining about price gouging and how the poor can't afford to feed themselves.

      Go and ask the poor sap on the DVD counter to recommend you a good family movie for the evening.

      And I take it Netflix is the devil incarnate.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    7. Re:Stop Sleepwalking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wal-mart employee here. I want to know more about these minimum wages. I'm not making them. I'm not management either.

      I won't say how much I make but I can say I have no trouble affording a 2,300 sq. ft. house, every modern videogame console, all the videogames I want, and building a new PC every other year. Would I like to make more? Sure, everyone does. But it seems to me like I'm paid a bit better than what people assume given the comments I see.

    8. Re:Stop Sleepwalking! by jd678 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry... Germany has hypermarkets and France doesn't? Carrefour pioneered the hypermarket concept in Europe, decades before they appeared elsewhere in other European countries.

      The obesity difference between the two is more to do with one countries preference for potatoes and beer, and the other's for salad and wine.

    9. Re:Stop Sleepwalking! by sremick · · Score: 3, Interesting

      WalMart's been growing since they were called "Walton's Five and Dime" simply because they didn't gouge consumers.

      I love how when suddenly a company starts offering a product for less than what people were contently paying for it before, all of a sudden all the places offering it at the old price were "gouging consumers".

      Is it so hard to fathom that to produce certain things properly actually has a cost? And if someone else comes around selling for less than that, that maybe they're the "bad guys"? Either by virtue of selling below cost, or doing unethical/immoral things to get the price lower.

      Like a previous poster said: consumers prioritize price above all else. Apparently so... including common sense.

      When local milk farmers, who I assure you are honest hard-working people who are not price-gouging, can't even break-even, something's horribly wrong.

  7. Re:Sounds to me like... by Local+ID10T · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Its a better deal than what I get from Verizon.

    I wonder what the coverage is like, also if the phones will be any good.

    --
    "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
  8. Re:Sounds to me like... by Dynedain · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hell, two lines, unlimited voice, and paying extra for even 200MB of data would still be a hell of lot cheaper than what AT&T is offering now for a "family" iPhone plan.

    When I traveled to Hong Kong and London w/ my unlocked iPhone I picked up prepaid SIMs for around $15 that were more than enough to cover voice and data while traveling, and were substantially less expensive than what I'm locked into at home in the US.

    --
    I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
  9. Re:Sounds to me like... by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Informative

    I wonder what the coverage is like

    They are using T-Mobile's network. It'll be fine in major cities and utter crap in the countryside. Around these parts T-Mobile is useless if you venture more than two or three miles off the interstate.....

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  10. May not be as cheap as you think by Andorin · · Score: 4, Informative

    Is there a catch to Walmart's offerings? You bet. The available data plans are blindingly expensive, locking out much of the lucrative and quickly growing smartphone market. A single gigabyte of prepaid data through Walmart costs $40, which is quite steep compared to AT&T's 2GB for $25 per month, or T-Mobile's $30 per month for unlimited data.

    So says Ars Technica, anyway. I don't know much about the market for mobile Internet, but $40 per gigabyte sounds unbelievable. I'm just passing on what I've read.

    --
    That Anonymous Coward guy is pretty annoying. Can we have the government censor him or something?
    1. Re:May not be as cheap as you think by Thng · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Not a mobile data user, but IIRC, the average data use per month on smartphones is in the neighborhood of 200-300 megs a month, say average 250/moth. so I can either buy a $40 gigabyte that lasts four months, or I can buy 4 gigabytes of which I only use the one for $100 total (AT&T). Which gigabyte is unbelievable?
      This "cost per gigabyte" isn't neccessarily a fair comparison.

      Bottom line, maybe this plan isn't for you.

    2. Re:May not be as cheap as you think by vux984 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So says Ars Technica, anyway. I don't know much about the market for mobile Internet, but $40 per gigabyte sounds unbelievable. I'm just passing on what I've read.

      Really "unbeleivable"? I've had an iphone for about a year now. According to its usage statistics I've used:

      13,140 minutes
            475 MB of data
            426 MB of tethered data

      1GB for $40 will apparently cover me for a year at a time. Instead I pay some $20bucks a month or something for the data plan.

      I'm not a video on my phone junkie, and I don't get my email on my phone either. (I get too damn much of it, and really important stuff... I'll get a phone call anyway.)

    3. Re:May not be as cheap as you think by CycleMan · · Score: 3, Informative

      $40/GB is a lot cheaper than the $1200/MB Verizon charges for text messages.

  11. Re:Sounds to me like... by MadAhab · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If it's enough for the target market, this will be a big success. If not, it will be teh suck.

    i'm neither for or against it either way. mobile access in the USA is very oligarchic - few companies who offer the same things. so this is different, and so good.

    --
    Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
  12. Re:Waiting for the Classist Anti-Walmart Hipsters. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm clearly behind on my political lingo here. WTF is a Classist Anti-Walmart Hipster? Is that like a statist job-killing Atheist? Or more like a fascist union muslim? Perhaps a statist fascist? A communist obamanaut with a hint of racism?

    Please clue me in. I can't follow all the new definitions that you keep pumping out.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  13. Re:Sounds to me like... by AlamedaStone · · Score: 4, Funny

    Go with Verizon. Your immortal soul, coverage almost everywhere.

    When you miss a payment, they claim your soul and put you to work in customer service.

    Have you seen their new marketing slogan? "Rule the air!" Add the word 'minions' to the front and it sounds like The Monarch storming the Venture compound.

    --
    "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
  14. Re:Waiting for the Classist Anti-Walmart Hipsters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ok, I'll take the bait...

    A lot of people don't like Walmart for a lot of different reasons. Small business owners (and former small business owners) often dislike WM for making competition difficult, especially in rural areas. Manufacturers may dislike WM because of the constant pressure to lower prices as far as possible, which often results in SKUs specific to WM that use inferior parts, or companies which choose not to do business with them because their product quality would decline unacceptably. Humanitarians dislike WM because of the well-publicized abhorrent treatment of employees, such as locking them in the store overnight and paying lower wages/offering fewer benefits than the industry standard in areas where little other work is available.

    All in all, the one thing WM does well, to the exclusion of nearly all other goals, is make consumer goods as cheap as possible, putting the most products within the reach of the most people possible. In other words, use of the term "classist" to describe their opponents is pure bullshit. Anti-consumerist, sure; anti-corporate, maybe, but you'll find that you make more sense if you choose words that actually have some bearing on the point you're trying to make.

    As to hipsters, just because a large percentage of self-important assholes believe something doesn't make it wrong. Conversely, just because you and I share a dislike of pretentious douches doesn't make you right.

    Sorry for the rant, but seeing this shit modded up as insightful is a little too much.

  15. Walmart/Tmobile isnt targeting /. by metalmaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is a market for people who dont use smartphones. Some people will never have a need to use the web/online apps from their phone

    I worked for metroPCS for a year. I would never use their service, but they really hit home with the $35 all you can eat talk and text. For the budget conscious person or "phones are meant for talking" crowd, this plan is great. Along came Cricket(metro was in my area first though i believe cricket existed first) to offer the same thing. People ate it up. These two companies had piss poor service outside large cities and suburbs, but they offered the people something reasonable. If you dont travel its great. Fast forward and now Boost Mobile offers a truly flat rate for talk, text and 2way. Today we see Walmart and Tmobile team up. This is the best offer yet for the budget crowd because i think Tmo offers the best coverage for their prepaid maps.

    Will they offer the latest and greatest phones? No. They dont have to. Their target audience probably wouldnt have much use for even the most basic feature phones(maybe qwerty, camera, and bluetooth) Another reason is to keep costs down. Without a contract, the company cannot subsidize the phone purchase. Average Joe isnt going to buy a $500 phone if all it does is talk and text. he might buy that $100 phone that lets him shoot pictures and connect a handsfree headset or wired earpiece though. Afterall, those might be useful.

    The bottom line here is that there will always be a market where the dumbphone remains relevant.

  16. lol by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Everyone jump on the walmart hating bandwagon why don't you. I have an Aunt that worked at walmart as a checker for most of her life. She was a single mom and that job bought her a house and helped her raise 5 children (father was a deadbeat) then Walmart paid, in full, the entire college tuition of her eldest daughter through a program walmart has. If you don't want to buy Chinese made crap, then don't Walmarts selling what people want to buy. This cellular plan is a fine example of exactly what they do. We all know cellular plans are ridiculously over priced... look at any other country in the world and it's obvious. Walmart comes in and not only undercuts everyone else, they undercut them to the point it makes the other carriers look like idiots. And just like every other market they enter, this doesnt just mean walmart shoppers get lower prices, it means all the other carriers will have to drop their prices as well to prevent their customers from leaving in droves.

  17. Re:Sounds to me like... by BKX · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That may be true, but if you do it right, it can be cheaper with T-Mobile. For example, I recently sprung for a Nokia N900 (really, it's the best phone ever.). I signed up for T-Mobile's individual plan with unlimited text, 500 minutes and the "I own my own hardware" discount. I also have a Skype account. If sign up for T-Mobile service over the Internet you can add-in the unlimited data for phones (not for smartphones), and save some cash on the data (like $10/mo), and the SIM card is free (you have to pay for it in the store.) Then set up call forwarding on your Skype account to forward to your phone (in case you're out of range for data service but still have voice service when someone calls) and only give out your Skype number. I've used a grand total of 50 plan minutes last month with over 1000 minutes on my Skype account from the phone during peak hours. Skype's basically a $6/mo unlimited minutes addon. The N900 integrates with Skype perfectly (so long as you type your numbers in your contacts list with a "+1" in front of the area code and number). You can do this with a few other phones as well. (Just not Android phones with the T-Mobile markings, which can't use the data for phones plan add-on at all. Also, you may have to change which APN your phone uses to get it to work (internet2.voicestream.com is the APN if I recall). Just search howardforums for directions.)

    Grand total for essentially unlimited talk, text and data (with tethering) through T-Mobile and Skype (with taxes, assuming Skype is paid annually) = $56/mo. Only MetroPCS is cheaper but only by $6/mo and you can't tether.

  18. Wireless, Line? by Hylandr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    will sell a post-paid wireless service . . . The first line will cost

    Am I the only one that see this?

    - Dan.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    1. Re:Wireless, Line? by SeaFox · · Score: 2, Informative

      Am I the only one that see this?

      No, but you're the only idiot who seems to be equating "line" with a physical telephone wire, where everyone else knows that "line" in this case refers to a Line of Service: an active phone number that can be used to make/receive calls and texts.

      So in a "family plan" type scenario the bill would be $120/mo -- one primary phone on the account and three additional phones ($45+$25+$25+$25) and all four members would be able to talk to each other or anyone else nationwide and text without overages.

  19. Commoditization of phone service at last! by wealthychef · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Walmart is going to be very good for the phone industry. Walmart is very good at delivering CHEAP. Now the assholes that run AT&T and Verizon etc might have to compete on actual service instead of relying on monopoly.

    --
    Currently hooked on AMP
  20. Re:Sounds to me like... by xaxa · · Score: 2, Informative

    When I traveled to Hong Kong and London w/ my unlocked iPhone I picked up prepaid SIMs for around $15 that were more than enough to cover voice and data while traveling, and were substantially less expensive than what I'm locked into at home in the US.

    My UK landline (£14/month) has unlimited calls to 36 countries, including the USA... without that, calls to the USA are 8p or 13p/minute (depending on time of day).

    That compares well to AT&T's offering, where $23/month line rental plus $5/month (for "Worldwide Value Calling") gets you "discounted" calls to the UK for an incredible $2.29 or $3.17/minute. No wonder my American relatives email me, asking me to call.

  21. Re:Sounds to me like... by webminer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually, you can do this with T-mobile smartphones too. I bought a HTC HD2 off the craigslist, loaded Android into it. Its a T-mobile branded and locked phone but I was still able to add the $10/mo unlimited web for phones (not the $25/mo smartphones plan). Another neat trick was being able to setup fring and getting google voice to work with it (via sipgate and sipsorcery). I get free incoming and outgoing calls using this method. I just hand out my google voice number. I have been an AT&T customer for more than 6 years but I couldn't take it anymore!