Slashdot Mirror


WSJ: Americans' Phone Bills Are Going Up

There's been some positive news in the last year (and the last few) for American cellphone customers: certainly there's more visible competition for their business among the largest players in the market. Nonetheless, the Wall Street Journal reports that while more competition may translate into some more attractive service bundles, flexibility in phone options, or smoother customer service, it doesn't actually mean that the customers are on average reaping one of the benefits that competition might be expected to provide: lower price. Instead, the bills for customers on the major wireless providers have actually gone up, if not dramatically, in recent months — which means U.S. cell service remains much more expensive than it is in many other countries. The article could stand a sidebar on MVNOs and other low-cost options, though -- I switched to one of these from AT&T, and now pay just under $40 for one version of the new normal of unlimited talk and text, plus quite limited (1GB) data, but still using AT&T towers. Has your own cost to talk gone up or down?

273 comments

  1. Virgin Mobile by allaunjsilverfox2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    35 USD for "unlimited" data and 400 minutes of talk time. Texting is "free" using my google voice number. If I really needed to talk more than 400 minutes, I could use something like Skype for voice.

    --
    Restore the madness of youth's lechery
    1. Re: Virgin Mobile by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Does Google voice include texting past sms, or to foreigners yet?

      Please tell me yes.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    2. Re:Virgin Mobile by rhodium_mir · · Score: 1

      Virgin is great if you spend all of your time in the city. For people like me who need the coverage of the Verizon network PagePlus is a good choice. $30/mo gets me more minutes and texts than I would ever use along with 500MB of 3G data.

      --
      You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
    3. Re:Virgin Mobile by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 2

      I get tmobile for $23 a month per phone ($114 a month for 5 lines.) Everything is unlimited too.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    4. Re:Virgin Mobile by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      Boost Mobile - $35/mo, unlimited voice, data, text.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    5. Re: Virgin Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      35 USD

      Is that per month? It seems expensive. It depends on your needs, of course, but as I'm a light mobile user I end up paying about $60 AUD per year for my mobile service. For my usage it's a really good fit. Sadly the plan I'm on is no longer offered to new customers.

    6. Re:Virgin Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a prepaid phone from T-Mobile I don't use often, then again, I'm not out often. I don't really text either. Vonage (Pay As You Go) and Skype for home.

      I don't believe SMS costs much to implement. It's next to free, right? But the phone companies want to make money. I almost sort of wish Google would get into the game in order to shake things up like they did for e-mail services, forcing the hand of others.

      I would like the idea of having cheaper plans with "penny texting", or perhaps a scheme where...
      1st text of day: $1.00
      2nd text of day: $0.50
      3rd text of day: $0.25
      4th text of day: $0.13
      5th text of day: $0.07
      6th text of day: $0.04
      7th text of day: $0.02
      8th text of day: $0.01
      9+ text of day: $0.01

      That way, for those who want a light plan, it's more affordable.

    7. Re:Virgin Mobile by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Yeah... T-Mobile actually said in their last earnings call that they now get less money per subscriber than before. So at least for TMo customers, prices are definitely going down...

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    8. Re:Virgin Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have a cabin deep in Tahoe National Forest, and I still have service, while Verizon has none. I have to pump water from a creek to flush the toilet, but I still have internet, even if it is a bit sketchy and I bet I'd lose signal if it rained or something. Maybe I just got lucky on my cabin's location. But I suspect that cell service is better in the rural areas now than it was 10 years ago.

      In the city, there are so many hills surrounding that I have trouble with signal on most of the networks. (I've used AT&T and Sprint mostly in the Bay Area)

    9. Re:Virgin Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that statement can also mean that they aren't handling their costs well and prices are the same or higher heh.

    10. Re: Virgin Mobile by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Ha! When will Google Voice start handling MMS, period? And no, changing it over to an email doesn't count.

      Google hasn't done anything with the product since they bought it... other than put their name on it.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    11. Re:Virgin Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      T-mobile 10 euro per month infinite internet.
      Who cares about phone and text because I barely use it.
      Get on our level.

    12. Re:Virgin Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For reference:

      Germany, Otelo.de, Vodafone network:
      200 minutes, unlimited data (200MB high speed, GPRS speed afterwards), 10 EUR/month
      or unlimited minutes, unlimited data (500MB high speed), 24EUR/month

      German mobile phone plan prices are considered to be on the high end in Europe. In comparison:

      Austria, yesss.at, Orange Austria network:
      1500 minutes, 1500MB (1ct/MB afterwards), 15EUR/month

      France, mobile.free.fr:
      unlimited minutes, 20GB data, 20EUR/month (16EUR if you also subscribe to their landline ISP)

    13. Re:Virgin Mobile by markass530 · · Score: 1

      texting is free period

    14. Re:Virgin Mobile by rhodium_mir · · Score: 2

      Certainly the best network will vary depending on location. A buddy of mine works up in Alaska where apparently AT&T is the way to go and Verizon is useless. Here in Oregon at my parents' house and my family's cabin Verizon is the only network that has any signal.

      --
      You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
    15. Re:Virgin Mobile by rhodium_mir · · Score: 1

      So if you sent 10 texts a day you would spend $60 per month just on SMS?

      --
      You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
    16. Re:Virgin Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And this is why people in the US are paying through the nose for mobile phone service: You're willing to pay. I would understand if some company came up with a brash scheme like that, but a consumer?

    17. Re:Virgin Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it can't mean that. AlphaWolf_HK refers to average revenue per user.

    18. Re: Virgin Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you (oh Slashdot elite anonymous coward) don't use it doesn't mean it's not the preferred method for most of the world to send quick pics to others. Regardless of phone capability, the ability to see the picture is ubiquitous unless you have a phone pre-MMS.

    19. Re:Virgin Mobile by xvent · · Score: 0

      I've been trying to do the whole texting from a pc thing. The problem is the description of how to text someone it seems to describe a button that isn't on my webpage. Can you please tell me what's going on? Is it in beta or something?

    20. Re: Virgin Mobile by shitzu · · Score: 1

      Just for the fun of it my data - from Estonia:
      - i pay ~$5 for "unlimited" data (Actually my speed will be capped to EDGE speeds after 5GB - but i never use that much)
      - i have chosen to pay by the minute (~$0.02/min). That rarely exceeds another $5 as most my calls are free (family+coworkers)

      So all in all about 10$ a month.

      Also - i practically never use SMS/MMS, but jabber/facetime/fb chat/hangouts instead.

    21. Re: Virgin Mobile by fnj · · Score: 1

      35 USD

      Is that per month? It seems expensive. It depends on your needs, of course, but as I'm a light mobile user I end up paying about $60 AUD per year for my mobile service. For my usage it's a really good fit. Sadly the plan I'm on is no longer offered to new customers.

      Does your plan give you unlimited texts, unlimited data, and 300 minutes of talk? I thought not. For most users, VM at $35 is a good fit.

    22. Re:Virgin Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad T-Mobile's network coverage is so extremely sparse that it's practically non-existant outside of larger cities and along major interstate highways.

    23. Re:Virgin Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm thinking of cheaper options for those who rarely text. Unless someone is prepaid, it seems to be an all-or-nothing thing where it would cost $35/$45+ per month currently. Some sort of option for those who have monthly plans that don't do a lot of texting.

      (I think my prepaid cell had raised there texting rates to like 15 cents to receive, and 10 cents to send, or something like that.)

    24. Re: Virgin Mobile by spacec0w · · Score: 1

      From Spain: Unlimited 4G (after 1GB it goes to 3G speeds), Unlimited SMS/Calls, 100/10 Fiber optic Internet at home, Landline with 550 minutes to mobiles included, free to other landlines in Spain, Basic cable for 72€ taxes included, which is around $100. This is Movistar's "Fusión Fibra Máxima" package.

    25. Re:Virgin Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, texts are free to receive in Europe, no matter what. Do you get sexual favors with your mobile phone plans? Why are you guys paying that much???

    26. Re:Virgin Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pay $40/month for unlimited everything (text, voice, and internet) using my Galaxy S3 with Boost Mobile. It was $35/month before I got a smartphone. Not sure how their nation-wide service is, but I dont have any problems in my area.

      Phone bills are only getting more expensive if you're using companies like Verizon (I paid nearly $80/month for limited time with them, and then another $10/month for unlimited texts, which was a very difficult option to find and wasnt an option for very long; seriously, fuck Verizon).

    27. Re: Virgin Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. If you have a non-data plan, you cannot receive MMS. Therefore, it is not ubiquitous. MMS is just as big a bastardation as sending binary files in e-mail. I've always hated the use of attachments. It's the most inefficient way to share files. E-mail was never, ever designed to send files, and SMS was never, ever designed to either. Programmers have hacked these bastardizations to perfectly good applications just because people are too ignorant to use the proper tools, and the administrators are too lazy to teach the users. And, people, by and large, are resistent to learning a new skill.

    28. Re:Virgin Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sad, for a service that was supposed to be fully, 100% deployed and reaching every square inch of the country by 1985. The cell companies took advantage of the FCC's greed via extensions, and now we have a shitty, spotty, expensive cellular deployment by a couple of rich companies, with no end in sight. Good move, USA.

    29. Re:Virgin Mobile by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Boost is another Sprint brand so the coverage will be identical to Virgin. (The same goes for Sprint-based virtual networks they don't own such as Credo.) Actual Sprint service has a bit more coverage because it includes some roaming agreements that their prepaid brands don't include.

    30. Re: Virgin Mobile by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Non data plans (in the US) have traditionally been allowed to use data without a fee to send and receive MMS.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    31. Re: Virgin Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you tire of tilting at windmills? The uses you deride do not conform to your view of how things should be, but the public finds them of sufficient value that they are willing to pay for them and use them.

    32. Re:Virgin Mobile by Christopher_T. · · Score: 1

      Virgin really is the best deal around, especially if you're more into data and texting than voice calls. Only reason I'm not with them is that I qualify for the LifeLine program (the 'ObamaPhone'). They've also really upped their game as far as the phones they offer. I would have moderated your comment both Insightful and Informative if I could have.

  2. Canada... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's still a lot cheaper than Canada. Here we're dreaming of having something as good as American plans! As a single parent I just can't afford what they charge here...

    1. Re:Canada... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      Not to mention the lack of competition of cellphone and internet providers in small towns far from the major cities.

    2. Re:Canada... by corychristison · · Score: 4, Informative

      Tell me about it.

      I live in Saskatchewan. We have Sasktel, Bell, Telus, Rogers and the "spinoffs" (Fido, Koodo, 7-11's SpeakOut).

      My current plan is with Telus. $60/mo for unlimited nationwide talk (unlimited to anywhere in Canada, from anywhere in Canada), unlimited sms/mms, with 5GB of sharable Data. My wife also has the exact same plan, so we have a total of 10GB of usable data between the two of us. After 911 fee's and taxes, we are paying $133.24 total. As it stands this is about as good as it gets for my needs.

      I was with Sasktel for many years until last July/2014. We were locked into a 3 year contract, and paying $60/mo each for 300 local daytime minutes, unlimited local calling in the evenings ,unlimited SMS (but not MMS, those were $1.00 each), and "unlimited" data. One gotcha they didn't tell you, is they also charged an $7-$8 "system access fee" on top of your plan, plus 911 fee's and taxes. In total we were paying ~$155/month. This does not account for overage or long distance fee's we would end up paying most months.

    3. Re:Canada... by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I just switched to Fido, feeling 'lucky' now to be paying 'just' $50/mo for 1000 voice (unlimited incoming and after 5pm), 1000 data, unlimited texting, and Canada-wide coverage (can call anywhere, can be anywhere).

      Switched from Rogers, where i was paying $55/mo for 150 voice (unlimited after 6pm, still paid for incoming during the day), 100 data, unlimited texting (100 'international', Fido: unlimited), dinged for Canadian long-distance and being outside of my city range if called or made a call. Ironic since Rogers owns Fido...but i'll take it.

      As a 'plus', Fido just charges what they say ($50/mo plus tax). Rogers also has a bunch of 'extra' charges that turn up when you get your bill.

    4. Re:Canada... by inHaliburton · · Score: 1

      Cory, if you own your phone(s), have you checked out Virgin Mobile for $58.50? 10% off Gold 65 2GB Txt & Pic msg to Can & US Unlimited International text Call Display myPeeps Smartphone Data - 2 GB Unlimited anytime minutes Voicemail 3 Canada-Wide Calling Unlimited Incoming Text Pay per use Voice - U.S. Roaming

  3. Ting by ruiner5000 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, Ting, my bill just went down.

    --
    ignorance is bliss. googlefiberatx.com
    1. Re:Ting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ting is amazing, and how every and all carriers should be. Low prices, only pay for how much you use, no contracts. Definitely awesome.

    2. Re:Ting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ting is by far the cheapest possible option for the average geek, excepting maybe Virgin. My bill _after_ taxes is less than $30, for 500 minutes, 1000 text, and 100MB data. But Ting has no unlimited-this or unlimited-that gimmick.

      I used my savings to buy a Nexus 5. However, the new version of Android is a pain when it comes to sucking down data unsolicited. I was away from WiFi for several days, and Android eventually insisted on downloading updates over cellular (crossing the 100MB threshold and putting me into the 500MB bucket), which increased my bill this month by $9+taxes.

      Their account interface rocks, though. It's something most geeks would pay extra for if they saw it.

      Virgin Mobile is also really attractive, but Ting's sales practices, billing methods, and account management interface are so transparent and convenient that I wouldn't even care if Virgin was slightly cheaper.

    3. Re:Ting by symbolset · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can configure your Nexus 5, and specific apps and services on it, to not use mobile data in the background. In Settings -> Data Usage scroll down and you will see apps. Select the app, scroll down again and you will see the setting "restrict background data". Check this box and it will stop using mobile data while the app is in the background. This is especially critical for things like Google+, where if you take one HD video it will try to sync it in the background and kill your monthly quota. My kids were making videos with my phone while I slept...

      Ting looks like a nice deal, and enthusiastic support. I was very frustrated dealing with Sprint to acquire a SIM for my Nexus 5. They were abhorrent in person at three stores and in online chat as well. That kind of put me off. I did finally manage to get SIMs from Ting real easy like. But the experience put me off even of using Sprint towers.

      Besides, T-mobile has been really nice to me. That's worth a few extra bucks.

      Stay away from Microsoft Skype on your Nexus 5. It has a known issue that kills the battery. Imagine that.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    4. Re:Ting by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      Ting is decent, but it could be better. Trying to achieve zero data usage, I found that the smartphone came preloaded with crapware that insists on checking in daily. It's only a few bytes, but that's enough to bump the user into the next bucket. Only way I could stop it was by disabling data transmission entirely. Configuring the individual apps not to check for updates or otherwise exchange data did not work. Only takes one rogue app to wreck that plan.

      I really don't need a smartphone's Internet surfing ability anyway. It's a terrible interface. Tiny screen, terrible tiny touch keyboard. At least the mouse action is decent. But I find using a somewhat bigger device on a WiFi connection is much better.

      The text messaging is still a complete ripoff. That ought to be free, not hundreds of times the cost of voice, considering the quantitiy of data each requires.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    5. Re:Ting by Hugh+Pickens+DOT+Com · · Score: 1

      Ting is great.

      I bought an iphone 4s from sprint and activated it on Ting and my monthly bill is about $10.

    6. Re:Ting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet Another Happy Ting User(TM) here. $17 a month for all the talk/text/data I *actually use*.

      So, yeah, when their monthly prices went down, it didn't affect me, I'm too cheap already :-)

    7. Re:Ting by rhodium_mir · · Score: 1

      At the 100-500 MB level PagePlus is slightly cheaper, offering 1200 minutes, 3000 texts and 500 MB of data for $29/mo. For lighter use you can get their $12/mo plan which offers 250/250 minutes/texts and 10 MB of data and then you can add data at $0.10/MB.

      --
      You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
    8. Re:Ting by GTRacer · · Score: 1

      Hm. I'll add my cell service shopping story here I guess, since you mentioned Ting and the average geek.

      About 3 years ago I signed a 2-year deal with Verizon for fully unlimited LTE speeds on the then-awesome HTC Thunderbolt. Once I discovered Twitch TV my monthly streaming went up from about 9 gigs per month (Pandora, YouTube, other radio streaming, etc.) to around 18. And since I got grandfathered in to an unlimited plan, I couldn't make any plan changes or update my phone without getting shoved into an extension, something I was desperate to avoid. For my smartphone and data, plus 3 feature phones (all with unlimited talk and text), I wrote the monthly check for about $193.

      So as we neared the end of the contract I began looking into options. AT&T and Virgin only offered small data plans with no unlimited, and Sprint's fully unlimited plans were far too much to consider 4 lines. The WalMart plans were data-capped but otherwise attractive. So ultimately I chose T-Mobile. I got a Samsung GS4 with truly unlimited data (and 2.5 gigs of hotspot) plus 4 more lines with 500 megs of high speed then throttled unlimited bytes. For all this I write the check for about $180. And in a year when the phone's paid off the bill will drop $21 automatically.

      I love T-Mo and am glad we all now have smartphones and all. But I will tip my cap to Verizon - their network, at least for me in the Southeast, is superior in terms of coverage and speed. T-Mo isn't bad - most places I get LTE and have no issues streaming Twitch or YouTube HD. But in some places I know I had fast Verizon, the T-Mo speeds are slower...

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    9. Re:Ting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ting is also on Sprint's network, which is only slightly broader coverage than TMobile. Pretty much non-existant outside of densely populated areas and main highways. I need coverage outside of town, out in the boondocks, and only ATT, VZW and US Cellular have good RF coverage around here outside of town.

    10. Re:Ting by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

      We got a Nexus 5, and even with mobile data turned off , it still uses something like 10KB/day. That makes me really uneasy.

      We contacted Ting support, and they assured us that there's a buffer in the billing so we wouldn't get charged for that data. Yes, but that's not the point. Why are we using mobile data even when it's explicitly turned off at the phone? What are we sending or receiving? Tracking information?

      We're still a lot happier with Ting than we were with Verizon, and the Nexus rocks, but I get really nervous when my devices disobey direct orders and nobody seems to care why.

    11. Re:Ting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the majority of people it is probably good enough though. If your a city/urban/suburban dweller sprints network usually has fine coverage. For those few times a year Im in the boonies you roam for free on VZW, so you still get voice and text. Previously on sprint they give you 250mb of roaming data/month, so for those times thats usually enough data as well. I still have to figure out how ting works with roaming data, I believe its not even an option

    12. Re:Ting by ejasons · · Score: 1

      The "known issue" is that it turns on the camera every three hours! (AppOps showed that; wonder any google is trying to get rid of AppOps...) No idea of why Skype thinks it needs the camera every three hours, but it can't be good.

      This was was causing the camera daemon to spin and not allow the phone to sleep, resulting in only a few hours of battery life.

  4. Mine has gone down. by whoever57 · · Score: 2

    I was on contract with T-Mobile: a family plan and one phone (out of 4) 18 months through its 2-year contract (the other 3 were past their 2-year contract period). T-Mobile allowed me to switch immediately to their monthly plans, with a reduction of about $60/month.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:Mine has gone down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here, T-Mobile has been great for me. Paying $100 per month for my family plan with four phones with unlimited talk, text and data. They don't have the coverage that some other services have but it work wonderfully everywhere that I use my phone.

  5. Mine's gone down by Nimey · · Score: 2

    I switched from Sprint to Ting, a Sprint MVNO that does strict PAYGO. $6/mo per connected device and charges for talk, text, and data based solely on usage in a given month; if I talk less next month my bill goes down, if I use more data it goes up.

    My phone bill for two devices is around half per month what Sprint charged us.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
    1. Re:Mine's gone down by Nimey · · Score: 0, Redundant

      More:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
      https://ting.com/rates

      If you decide to try it, click this referral link and we'll both get a $25 credit: https://zh0sl12gq05.ting.com/

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    2. Re:Mine's gone down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah Ting is working out really well. Went from ~110 w Sprint to ~30 w Ting but still on Sprint network.

    3. Re:Mine's gone down by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --Serious question, can anyone recommend an good AT&T MVNO in south Texas? I have a *dumb* phone, and AT&T is killing me @ ~$64/month for unlimited voice + text only, with NO data plan. They're way overcharging me @$20/mo for unlimited text. I've considered Solavei but not sure my phone would make the transition - I don't need an iPhone or Android. TIA

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    4. Re: Mine's gone down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Straight Talk, but the "unlimited" data is a bit tricky to find the point where they'll cut you off. I guess don't use it for watching videos. I can usually get a couple of hours a day of Pandora on it without running afoul.

    5. Re:Mine's gone down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aio. The lowest plan is $40/mo and you can get a $5 discount for auto-pay.

    6. Re:Mine's gone down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ting is great; unless you actually use data. In my honest opinion they need to increase the size of the first data bucket to 500MB, or stick to per MB/Min/txt charges from the outset. Every month I get charged $10 extra for 5-10MB over a cap size (and I try hard to manage my data use).

      I know the buckets encourage use (which is good for the business), but it is disheartening to see a $50 phone bill that could have been $13 if I sent 4 less texts, had one less phone conversation, and didn't forget to disable mobile-data that one time to keep google now "cards" from eating my lunch.

    7. Re:Mine's gone down by Nimey · · Score: 1

      That's a fair point about data usage. My wife's Nexus 5 tends to use just over 100MB of data per month, which of course drives us up to the second tier of charges.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    8. Re:Mine's gone down by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      Airvoice is $30/mo, no taxes/fees, unlimited voice & text, 500MB data. You can spend a little more to not get data (as shown above), but this is the plan my wife has & is great. Any unlocked GSM phone will work, they are an ATT MVNO.

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    9. Re:Mine's gone down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't used an MVNO myself yet, but I've looked and the difference between them seems to be customer support (since AT&T and others handle the back end).

      There's H2O Wireless. They've got a $30/month unlimited talk/text with 500 MB of data. Tech support is rated as poor, however (over phone/live; email and such apparently have better response rates probably because it's easier to manage). Their $60 apparently has unlimited data. Note that these plans changed just this year, so they weren't quite as good during 2013 or before (no unlimited data on the top tier plan for one).

      Incidentally, the Lumia 520 is now $60 via the Microsoft Store. I'm not big on Windows Phone, but it's about $40 for a cheap dumb phone and the Lumia 520 should be able to play MP4s on a larger screen. I believe it will work on H2O Wireless. (I've been looking to move a Verizon iPhone to an MVNO and, dear god, they won't allow it due to contractual obligations or something.)

    10. Re:Mine's gone down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try Net10

  6. False advertising. by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't understand how businesses are allowed to tack on fees to bills without disclosing these fees in their prices. Somehow they can't quote these fees when you are booking the service, but they can calculate them when billing for the services.

    Some years ago, I rented a car from a large airport and one of the fees tacked on was for the property taxes paid on the car. Why don't they just tack on another fee for the property tax on their buildings, or their staff costs, car depreciations? These are all costs that must be paid by the business whether or not I had rented the car -- just like the property taxes on the car.

    I am just waiting for prices for cellphone and car rental services to be $1 with the rest of the cost as "taxes and fees".

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:False advertising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The RyanAir model?

    2. Re:False advertising. by Mitreya · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't understand how businesses are allowed to tack on fees to bills without disclosing these fees in their prices. Somehow they can't quote these fees when you are booking the service, but they can calculate them when billing for the services.

      That's right, this should definitely be illegal. Airlines played those games for years and years ($50 ticket fee, but with taxes it works out to $100 or maybe even $300). A rather recent regulation had ended that crap

    3. Re:False advertising. by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Trouble with this is the carriers won't be able to run national ads with their pricing. Instead the price will have to be concealed until you're about to sign up. Some states (Nevada) you pay around 7%, whereas others (I think NY?) it's 25%. I'm still trying to figure out why the government finds it necessary to make a cell phone so expensive to have, even if your income is shit.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    4. Re:False advertising. by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Trouble with this is the carriers won't be able to run national ads with their pricing. Instead the price will have to be concealed until you're about to sign up. Some states (Nevada) you pay around 7%, whereas others (I think NY?) it's 25%.

      If it were purely taxes that the company must collect and hand over based purely on what you pay, I could agree with that, but when it is nebulous "fees" that are really cost of doing business that the company incurs, it's not reasonable. Furthermore, some of the fees relate to Federal fees that are the same in all states.

      In the example I was quoting (renting a car at an airport), the company has enough information to quote the exact price with all fees at the time of booking.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    5. Re:False advertising. by bzipitidoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I beat an auto repair shop on an extra fees scam some years ago. Got a quote for a muffler replacement, and used it. After the work, they tacked on this extra $15 fee for "shop materials". That shop materials fee seems to be a common scam in the DFW area. When I objected, they trotted out the tired old justification that everyone does it, it's standard practice, etc. Also tried to claim it was a government requirement. EPA, you know. I pointed out that they had not included this cost on the quote, and they should have. That backed them off, and they dropped that extra charge.

      It's relentless. Just because a business is big and well-known is no assurance they won't stoop to outright theft and try to pass it off as necessary or customary. Once had AT&T try to charge me a fee for dropping long distance service while keeping local. A fee for dropping a service? Ridiculous! When I complained to them, they tried to tell me that a particular law said they were allowed to charge this fee, so tough. I told them I didn't give a rats ass what some miserable obscure law said, as they'd doubtless pushed it through with bribes and lobbying, and warned them I would complain to the FCC if they didn't back down. They didn't, so I did. Evidently the complaint worked. AT&T responded by refunding the fee in the interests of "customer relations" while in no way admitting any fault.

      The problem of ripoffs and poor service always seems to crop up wherever competition is lacking, and telecomms companies in the US certainly do not have enough competition. Ma Bell was an evil monopolist until their forced breakup in 1984, which it turned out, didn't help much. Today, telecomms in the US are still uncompetitive, price gouging, regulatory capturing, sluggish, backwards scum.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    6. Re:False advertising. by tenchikaibyaku · · Score: 2

      Why is it more important that advertisers have the ability to advertise a single price all over the country than consumers being able to easily tell what something actually costs once they're in a store? This seems like a really weird (or at least one-sided) argument.

    7. Re:False advertising. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The fees will have been described to you in detail before you signed up. Somewhere in that fifty-page point-8-font contract you didn't read.

    8. Re:False advertising. by 3247 · · Score: 1

      Trouble with this is the carriers won't be able to run national ads with their pricing. Instead the price will have to be concealed until you're about to sign up. Some states (Nevada) you pay around 7%, whereas others (I think NY?) it's 25%. I'm still trying to figure out why the government finds it necessary to make a cell phone so expensive to have, even if your income is shit.

      They could still run nationwide ads with the net price but quote the correct amount before you sign up.

      --
      Claus
    9. Re:False advertising. by ruir · · Score: 1

      Are you sure it ended? It has always been the business model of ryanair...

    10. Re:False advertising. by Wansu · · Score: 2

      The problem of ripoffs and poor service always seems to crop up wherever competition is lacking, and telecomms companies in the US certainly do not have enough competition. Ma Bell was an evil monopolist until their forced breakup in 1984, which it turned out, didn't help much. Today, telecomms in the US are still uncompetitive, price gouging, regulatory capturing, sluggish, backwards scum.

      I don't know how old you are but Ma Bell was nowhere near as evil as today's AT&T and Verizon. Ma Bell was a regulated monopoly with many constraints on what it could do.

      The Bell System was broken up in 1982 by a lawsuit brought by Northern Telecom because they wanted to sell the DMS-100 in the US. As a result of that court ruling, the Bell System was broken up into "baby bells". Since then, the new AT&T has absorbed them one by one.

      So now we have a few big companies running the show with very few constraints on what they can do. Competition will not happen. Instead, they merge into bigger companies that are too big to fail. Essentially the same thing has happened in the electric power industry. And it gets sold to the public as free market competition.

      --
      Wansu, th' chinese sailor
    11. Re:False advertising. by rhodium_mir · · Score: 1

      "So expensive"? I pay twelve bucks a month for mine.

      --
      You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
    12. Re:False advertising. by BVis · · Score: 2

      Because the American consumer market exists to service the moneyed interests, of course. Duh. Did you think that it was there to provide consumers with quality, competitive services at a reasonable cost? That's cute.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    13. Re:False advertising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Today, telecomms in the US are still uncompetitive, price gouging, regulatory capturing, sluggish, backwards scum.

      Not all, just most; Mine is a co-op so I own part of it and get decent service and everything, the only downside is I pay about 50% more for it.

    14. Re:False advertising. by usuallylost · · Score: 1

      Generally the answer is that the fees in question are something being collected for a third party. Usually the Government. Taking a quick look at my mobile bill, this is in the US, for this month I see five fees. Communications Sales Tax, State & Local Sales Tax, Federal Universal Service Fund, Regulatory Surcharge and State 911 Fee. All of which are taxes. So in my view it is just like how you buy a bunch of stuff at the store and have to keep track of the sales tax that they are going to tack on at the counter. It would make life much easier if they forced the mobile providers to quote the prices inclusive of the taxes.

    15. Re:False advertising. by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      Exactly. Here in NY, the tax rate is 8.25%. If a cell phone carrier was advertising $100 a month for their plans, I could easily add in taxes and come up with a $108.25 real cost. I'd have no problem if this was the only "below the line" fee that they added in. However, they add in a ton of other things that are basically costs of doing business. By the time I need to multiply in the 8.25% tax, we're talking $130 instead of $100. Somehow, Amazon and other major retailers are able to sell items nationwide without saying "This doodad will cost $25 plus $1.25 server maintenance fee plus $3.27 web app programming fee plus $2 executive hot tub installation fee...." Why can't the phone companies? (Besides the obvious answer of "Hiding these extra 'fees' makes them money.")

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    16. Re:False advertising. by usuallylost · · Score: 4, Informative

      AT&T got absorbed by Southwestern Bell Corporation (SBC) in 2005. Which is pretty much the worst of the baby bells split off from the original Bell System. They adopted the AT&T name, in part because theirs has a rather bad reputation, but the underlying company is SBC along with the bits of AT&T that they kept. So it is really SBC that is buying up everything not the company formerly known as AT&T.

      My recollection of the old Ma Bell isn't as rosy as yours. You used to have to rent the telephone from them. You were not allowed to work on the phone wiring in your own home. I can remember being charged a non-trivial amount to have a phone line in my parents home repaired. Because it wasn't allowed for me to do it and unless you bought their in home wiring insurance policy you had to pay Ma Bell to come do it. Before the break up I can remember it costing something like $2 a minute to call my grandmother in Illinois from Virginia. My dad used to stand there while we talked and time the call because he could only afford so much time per month. Before the break up my father wanted a new phone Ma Bell quoted him over $200. We didn't get it because it was so costly. A couple of years later after the break up that exact phone was sold under the AT&T brand name for $19.99.

      The break up may have allowed many questionable practices but it also brought costs for the average person way down. The worst practices seem to be more related to the industry consolidating than to the initial breakup.

    17. Re:False advertising. by kimvette · · Score: 1

      >. Ma Bell was an evil monopolist until their forced breakup in 1984, which it turned out, didn't help much.

      Really? How are you paying $2 to $6 when everyone else in America now pays a fraction of a cent? The breakup did in fact help. You do not need to lease/rent your telephones from Ma Bell, you can add as many phones as you want and you can pick your choice of voice carriers - including free VOIP providers if their offerings fit your needs. The "videophone" is now reality and most of us bave far more data bandwidth coming jnto our homes than the "fattest" arpanet links offered. There is no way whatsoever that the breakout did not help consumers.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    18. Re:False advertising. by kimvette · · Score: 1

      /s/breakout/breakup/

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    19. Re:False advertising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they should be forced to make their nationwide advertised price include all fees, charges, etc...

      On the states where the fees are a tich less, they make a tich more.

      Only $49.99 a month - must include all fees, charges, taxes, etc...

      Unlimited* - ehhh - no asterisks next to any terms - terms mean what they mean - unlimited means unlimited - period.

      Any attempt to redefine a term and your customers get free unlimited service for as long as they wish to be a customer.

      If I was part of the FTC, this is what I would mandate. I would force Cell towers to common carrier status, come up with *ONE* 1 standard, and really implement 4G -(The UNITED STATES does not have a single carrirer that has implemented 4G as of yet, all the carriers 4g crap is really 3G+stupid-tricks).

      Then I would open all the towers up as an even playing field, any company could access them for the same cost - paying a small percentage into the pool for infrastructure maintenance and updates. With all the *extra* towers provided by multiple carriers, coverage could be extended to just about everywhere, and service levels / speeds would go up. Integrate with common carrier internet service (After regulating that content providers cannot be service providers and forcing time warner to divest itself of one or the other), all cell towers would be fed with multiple Gbit service for it's needs.

    20. Re:False advertising. by operagost · · Score: 1

      This is the kind of thing that libertarians warn about. We want free markets, but "free market" doesn't mean giving perks to corporations any more than it means regulating every facet of their existence. The perk is their ability to recover their regulatory costs by passing them on to their customer as fees. The government is enabling them to commit fraud by advertising a rate, then tacking on fees that equal a significant percentage of the charges.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    21. Re:False advertising. by tepples · · Score: 1

      The UNITED STATES does not have a single carrirer that has implemented 4G as of yet, all the carriers 4g crap is really 3G+stupid-tricks

      I guess you're claiming that people who misread it as "4G Lite" are more correct than they think. How is LTE "stupid tricks"?

    22. Re:False advertising. by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Somehow, Amazon and other major retailers are able to sell items nationwide without saying "This doodad will cost $25 plus $1.25 server maintenance fee plus $3.27 web app programming fee plus $2 executive hot tub installation fee...." Why can't the phone companies?

      There are several reasons. One reason is that by putting in these line items for things such as 911 fee and FCC fee, they make it appear as though they are not the ones charging you the fee and they should not be blamed for it. A second reason is that by putting these out there as line items they can lie about their prices and appear to be cheaper than the competition.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    23. Re:False advertising. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      All of their excuses are BS. For proof, I submit prepay as evidence. If you "charge" your T-Mobile account with a $30 card, it never costs more than $30/month for whatever service they are advertising, regardless of the market you are in.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    24. Re:False advertising. by tepples · · Score: 1

      Does Ryanair still employ that business model in the States?

    25. Re:False advertising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Start a referendum in your state to require any price appearing in an advertisement to be the final out-of-pocket price.

    26. Re:False advertising. by IronChef · · Score: 1

      Your AT&T story reminds me of my own bad experiences with that carrier. I've been on a pre-paid carrier for a long time now and find I much prefer it.

      My bill is completely predictable, and best of all, my phone company doesn't have access to any of my billing information. They can't just decide to charge me a mystery fee, or otherwise screw up the billing.

      It's great and I will never go back to post-paid and contracts.

    27. Re:False advertising. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      One reason is that by putting in these line items for things such as 911 fee and FCC fee, they make it appear as though they are not the ones charging you the fee and they should not be blamed for it.

      Well, that is the case, is it not? Those fees are mandated taxes that they have to charge - much like sales taxes. Is the retailer/seller the one responsible for charging you the tax? No - they are simply acting as tax collectors for the various Governmental agencies that demand they collect said tax. I do not hold my motorcycle dealer responsible for the sales and license taxes that the State of California charges. He is not the one imposing the tax on me - it is the local and State Governments than do so, my dealer is simply the agent collecting the tax (and passing it along dutifully to the taxing authority).

      The fees and taxes are not from the carriers - they are from the local, State, and Federal Governments.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    28. Re:False advertising. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Personally I wish they would keep it the old way. I fly a lot (like 150,000+ miles a year, most of it internationally), and it's quite eye-opening to realize that round-trip flight from Los Angeles to Shanghai has a $450 ticket on Delta - but there are $600 worth of taxes and fees added to it. Makes you realize just who is making the money on my flight - and it's not Delta.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    29. Re:False advertising. by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      Well, okay, the breakup helped. It could have helped more if competition had been maintained. Turns out the Internet helped much more. Introduced a whole new area of competition, and showed how packet networking vastly increases capacity over the old switched networking the phone system used to use.

      Right you are, we no longer pay $3/minute for a long distance call. We don't have to use acoustic coupler modems with those handset cradles to get around Ma Bell's rules against plugging any device but theirs into the jack. We can have long cords for handsets, extensions in other rooms, and touch tone service, without having to pay an extra monthly fee for each of those. Not sure about Caller ID, think that still costs extra on a land line.

      But a typical low end cell phone plan is still $40/month. An Internet connection is about the same, after haggling. If you sleep at the wheel, they'll crank your rate up to the $60/month level or higher. Seriously annoying having to beat down the provider every 6 or 12 months, demand their current special or just walk out on them. Even if successful, $40/month is too high. The breeakup and the Internet helped, but there's still lots of room for improvement.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    30. Re:False advertising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's less about making money (not that it isn't) than it is about advertising. Put enough into fees, and you can advertise a lower (IMHO fraudulent) rate.

    31. Re:False advertising. by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      These aren't fees that the government says "You must charge each user $X." These are taxes that the government charges to the company. The company then passes it on to the customer. This is to be expected, of course, but such taxes and fees are costs of doing business. If they want to break it out, fine. Include a portion of the bill showing just why the base monthly fee is a certain amount - including all of the costs imposed by government taxes. However, advertising a $30 service and then charging $50 because of below the time "taxes/fees" is deceptive at best.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    32. Re:False advertising. by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Those fees are mandated taxes that they have to charge - much like sales taxes. Is the retailer/seller the one responsible for charging you the tax? No - they are simply acting as tax collectors for the various Governmental agencies that demand they collect said tax. I do not hold my motorcycle dealer responsible for the sales and license taxes that the State of California charges.

      Your motorcycle dealer may pay property taxes on his buildings. Does he add that as a fee that he charges you? In the specific case I mentioned, a car rental service charged me a fee for the property taxes on the cars -- this is a tax, but the company must pay it whether or not I rent the car, so it is a cost of doing business, not a tax imposed by a government entity on my rental contract.

      But back to phones, in a recent T-Mobile phone bill I see the item:

      "Other fees and government-related Obligations"

      This is explained as:
      "These fees relate to your service. They may be imposed on us and passed through to you pursuant to your contract" This falls far short of a claim that the fees are merely a pass-through of taxes imposed on T-Mobile that are specific to the service that T-Mobile supplies to me.

      The bill also includes an item "Federal Universal Service Fund". Once again, this is a charge imposed on the carrier. The FCC does not require the carriers to pass this charge through to end users. In other words, it is a cost of doing business. It is also predictable and applies equally to all states (so could be included for advertising purposes in all states).

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    33. Re:False advertising. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      The FCC provides a nice breakdown and illustrates how these fees can change based upon your usage (local versus long distance) and some (such as the USF) are strictly mandated by the Government. I kind of like knowing how much is going to the various Governments in terms of taxes; often we hear people railing against some company making a certain amount of profit on their activities, but we find out that the Governments actually make even more profit (in the form of taxes)...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  7. And by The+Cat · · Score: 5, Informative

    Landline sound quality in 1975 was better than any mobile phone sound quality in 2014.

    "Hi, I'd like to get directions on how to mmmRAWWWWW BOAWWWAAHH URRRBBEE URBEEE BUMPH RAWWWWLLLL at the corner of Park Street. Hello? I said, I want to get dir--fwwwwzzzzEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE URPP *crackle* ffffffFAZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ EEEP Park street."

    The telecom companies raise prices, pocket the money and let their service rot, and the customers just keep shoveling cash at them.

    1. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Yes! You the customer can have unlimited text/data for $70/mo (...belch...2GB...burp...CAP...fart... Can you hear me now?). Makes no difference whether we're talking about gas prices, health insurance, cable Internet or phone, corporate America motto is "Pay the CEO $40M+/year and screw the customer!!!" Oh yeah, we can make a profit this year, let's layoff 9,000 more!

    2. Re:And by Dorianny · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Landline sound quality in 1975 was better than any mobile phone sound quality in 2014.

      This suprises you somehow? A landline provides a lot more bandwidth without any worries of signal interferance from walls or other radio sources. The switches were also analog, no need for converting analog sound into digital bits, compressing and then sending them in discreete packets.

    3. Re:And by Maxx169 · · Score: 1

      Depends. AMR-WB (sometimes marketed as HD-Voice) which has been around for years (not all carriers support it though) is much higher quality than what you typically get over POTS.

    4. Re:And by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      The telecom companies raise prices, pocket the money and let their service rot, and the customers just keep shoveling cash at them.

      New codecs were developed for 3G service and *supposedly mobile calling has gotten better.

      The GSM codec is AMR-WB and the CDMA codec is called EVRC-NW.
      Some networks aren't going to switch over until LTE (aka real 4G) is fully deployed and it requires both ends of the call to support the codec.

      YMMV

      *depending on whether or not it's been enabled in your area/on your provider.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:And by Flammon · · Score: 2

      You can thank the government corporate and IP laws for eliminating competition and causing this mess.

    6. Re:And by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This suprises you somehow? A landline provides a lot more bandwidth without any worries of signal interferance from walls or other radio sources. The switches were also analog, no need for converting analog sound into digital bits, compressing and then sending them in discreete packets.

      Analog phone service sounds better than digital landline - because it was all analog and very little filtering happened. Then in the mid-70's or so AT&T was switching to digital systems. They did research (heavily) into finding out what bandwidth they could limit to and still have intelligible speech, which was decided that the good chunk of human vocalizations exist below 4kHz or so.

      This gave rise to the 8KHz sampling with 8 bits (or a 64kbps channel), uncompressed. Which is why our phone systems use 64kbps channel allocations. (56k modems were derived from the fact that every 8th byte or so, a bit was robbed from the audio and used for control purposes. Since you could never tell when this happened, they assumed you only had a 7-bit channel).

      Of course, that voice is carried at a full 64kbps. GSM and other digital mobile telephony only really have datarates of 4kbps or lower, necessitating use of highly compressed, highly distorting codecs meant to get the most out of every bit - and let the brain do a lot of the error correction and such (speech has low enough entropy that the powerful organic audio processor running rather advanced wet software can do very good forward error correction to extract out what is being said, despite all the distortion).

      Of course, with 3G and LTE and such, codecs are available that let you use more bandwidth to get higher audio quality, but like all things, it requires both ends to support it.

    7. Re:And by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Landline sound quality in 1975 was better than any mobile phone sound quality in 2014.

      The problem is, of course, that it's hard to take that landline with me to the grocery store, or to work, or on vacation - the cost of such a cable gets prohibitively expensive.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  8. $35 unlimited everything from Boost. Phone subsidi by raymorris · · Score: 1

    With the discount for on-time payments, I pay $35 for unlimited talk, text, and web on the Sprint network. That's no contract, so certainly good prices are available.

    Of course, many people pay $85 for the phone subsidy that comes with a three year contract. An extra $50 / month will certainly increase the bill. $50 for 36 months is $1,800 for a "free" phone that's worth $250. No thanks. I don't recall how often you can get a new phone subsidized, but if it's a $200 credit once a year and people are paying $50 / month for that benefit ...

  9. Cheaper with RepublicWireless by arnott · · Score: 1

    Moved from ATT to RepublicWireless, another Sprint MVNO, has plans from $5 to $40. Right now, Moto X is the only phone.

    1. Re:Cheaper with RepublicWireless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up. $25/month unlimited everything, no contract, no subsidy, best phone I've owned. People are stupid not to switch to this.

    2. Re:Cheaper with RepublicWireless by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

      Moved from ATT to RepublicWireless, another Sprint MVNO, has plans from $5 to $40. Right now, Moto X is the only phone.

      The problem with this whole article and your post is you don't give enough details. Most companies are now going to unlimited talk and text and only paying for data since most users now have smartphones. So what though if I get unlimited data for $10! If the speeds are edge or 3g or below, yeah it'll work for those that are watching costs primarily, but for many/most, their smartphone had better be fast and get good coverage.

      Last I saw, ATT wasn't allowing the MVNO's to use their LTE antennas, only their 3g ones (marketed as 4G).

  10. Bill went down after I threatened to leave by artor3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My bill with Verizon dropped 40% after I threatened to switch carriers. Cell phone plans are a beautiful example of how prices are set based on the market's willingness to pay, not on the actual cost of the good or service.

    Expect prices to continue to rise as companies employ more and more psychologists and statisticians to extract the absolute maximum amount of wealth from their consumers.

    1. Re: Bill went down after I threatened to leave by AudioEfex · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've been ready to split to a MVNO for my two phones, both out of contract and no need to upgrade anytime soon. Even went through unlocking process with ATT. I was getting ready to do it last month but life happened, but I was able to get the website to take my $120 service (unlimited minutes, texts, 1GB data) down to $90. It was the same plan - and irritated me that it didn't just automatically move me. Then I log in today, and they actually have applied another discount without my intervention - now my monthly service is $65. They also seem to be applying my company discount differently - before it used to only be on the phone plan portion of the bill, now it seems to be applying over my entire bill which is bringing it down that low. It's saving me about 7-8 extra bucks calculated this way.

      So over two billing cycles my phone bill has dropped by nearly half. And all I did was click a different plan the first month, and this month I didn't do anything at all. Coincidentally, $65 was the price I was finding for the other services I had explored as alternatives. So, I've never had a problem with service (except on a visit to LA once, it was awful - maybe the smog? Lol) and I've gotten the price I was going to get without the hassle of changing anything. I'm going to keep a very close eye on my bill to make sure it doesn't creep up again, but I'm a happy camper all of a sudden.

    2. Re: Bill went down after I threatened to leave by Wolfrider · · Score: 2

      --Coincidence? This is East 'Murika, comrade - they probably scraped your cookies and found out you were checking out the competition.

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    3. Re: Bill went down after I threatened to leave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aiowireless $50/mo unlimited everything (4G+ data limited to 2.5GB). And $5/mo discount with autopay.

    4. Re:Bill went down after I threatened to leave by servant · · Score: 1
      This is why Walmart survives. It gives customers something similar to what they want at 'disruptive' prices. They have gotten in bed with Straight Talk Wireless which is a MVO of AT&T I believe (but I could be wrong on that).

      Currently, the MVOs seem to have the best value. They take a lower retail cut and buy in bulk from the major carriers, so they can lower retail prices. It typically costs about $100K to become a MVO, not much if you are basing a larger business around it.

      MVO ~ Mobile Virtual Operator - rebranding service that 'real companies' provide. There are also data only MVO's but they tend to sell to folks like redbox or vendors that require connectivity in equipment. I don't know of any retail selling mvo's.

      --
      ... "When you pry the source from my cold dead hands."
  11. Cheapest Plan by bradray · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I haven't taken a look at plans in the past year, but a year ago I looked at all of the plans available to find the cheapest possible service for someone that doesn't have many needs. I ended up with TMobile pay as you go plan. They had a unique feature that if you put $100 on your account, the money would stay in your account for 1 year. $100 a year for a cell phone service is hard to beat. This obviously won't work for someone that uses their phone quite a bit, but it is perfect for someone that can mostly use land lines and wireless internet. It's also perfect for a child whom you want to give a phone, but make them responsible for their own account balance.

    1. Re:Cheapest Plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that T-Mobile $100 plan is great for anyone who uses on the order of 1000 minutes per year.

      For me, I don't even use close to that much, so am thinking of switching to paying them $10 every 3 months. That gives me 30 minutes each quarter, most of which will end up going unused. $40/year is still more expensive than I would like, but having the ability to call AAA or the cab company in a pinch is definitely worth it.

    2. Re:Cheapest Plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, once you get the "gold" status by spending $100, the smaller credits also give you 1 year extra life on your account balance. So, you can get a year for $100 and then if you still have balance left at the end of that year, you can add a small amount ($10 or $25) and get the sum of your balance and that addition to last another year. This is a great way to keep phones around just in case, etc.

    3. Re:Cheapest Plan by Mendenhall · · Score: 2

      You missed the good part of the T-Mobile PAYGO plan: once you have paid the $100 once (or accumulated it via smaller payments), all your future added minutes last a year. So if you haven't used $100, you can top off with $50, or even $10, at the end of the first year, and it roll the leftover minutes forward to the next year and add the new minutes. If you buy fewer minutes, you are paying a bit higher price per minute, but you never lose the old minutes as long as you top off. This is why the original purchase of $100 is worth it, since you get the best rate ($0.10/minute).

      Also, T-Mobile has great deals on refurb phones often. I bought a Dart (not a great phone, but it works), For $90, which came with a $50 card for minutes. Thus, a useable Android phone for $40. It does support WiFi data tethering, so I can pay the $2 or $3 rate for a day when I need data, and have that for my other devices, too.

    4. Re:Cheapest Plan by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      Hard to beat, sure. Impossible, no. PagePlus (VZW MVNO) has $80/yr for 2000 minutes (had it for a year, only dropped it because I wanted a GSM phone).

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    5. Re:Cheapest Plan by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I'm on a T-mo family plan. Still, my costs for 4 lines are about $50/month lower than they were several years ago, except now all my lines have unlimited voice, SMS, and 2G data. I also get 500MB of 4G data on each line, and an extra 2G of 4G on one of them. I wouldn't say I'm paying less than half of what I used to pay, but it is in the ballpark.

      I might be able to do a bit better with other options, but unlimited everything has a certain appeal to it.

    6. Re:Cheapest Plan by xorsyst · · Score: 1

      That is not cheap - in the UK you can get a phone deal that's £20 (~$30) upfront for 300 mins / 300 texts / 500Mb data each month for life.

      Yes - £20 ONCE, that allowance ongoing for every month thereafter for FREE.

      Sure, you have to buy a handset. And they inject a few ads in the internet browsing.

      --
      Get free bitcoins: http://freebitco.in
    7. Re:Cheapest Plan by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      Aye! I was with Verizon for three years, but after the BS they tried to pull over Network Neutrality and their firm stance on forcing me to buy a data plan--despite using minimal data (that I only used because I was paying for it, not because I needed it)--because I had an outdated smartphone, I decided to switch. I chose T-Mobile for the exact same reason, getting the pay-as-you-go plan. (They also said they don't force the data plan on smartphones, which I believe, but I got a dumbphone so I couldn't test that.)

      Unfortunately I fumbled the switch over and had my number ported too early, meaning I had to pay Verizon's cancellation fee. This revealed to me just how horrible their customer service was (until then I'd had mostly pleasant experiences with them the few times I had to call) in trying to get my last month properly pro-rated.[1] However, now that all is settled and done, I paid $200 for signing up with T-Mobile (half service, half for the phone+taxes), plus an extra $20 to Verizon over what I would have paid for my final month; that was back in October, and since then I haven't had to fill the phone once, meaning I've so far saved $170 (Verizon was approx. $80/mo). I still have >$50 on the phone, too, so this works great for someone like me who makes few calls/texts. And, theoretically, I can easily go to a monthly plan (still no contract) if I think I'll be using a lot in a short time frame, then back down to pay-as-you-go (I imagine I'll lose what minutes I have left when I first change, though.)

      [1] WARNING TO EXISTING VERIZON USERS: If you have a contract and wind up in a similar situation as I (porting the number, cancelling the service, being charged the cancellation fee, and then trying to get time paid for pro-rated back), you must explicitly call and tell customer service that your phone number was ported or they won't consider it "cancelled". Their customer service tried to wiggle out of pro-rating me because I didn't do that, despite calling on three different occasions from the ported number, confirming on all three calls (if quickly) that I had full changed over, and them already charging me the cancellation fee. In the end I got my money, but it was a pain in the ass because their customer service kept saying they would do X but not do it or only half do it.

  12. Will sav USD 240/yr., + unlimited + free iPhone 5 by KrazyDave · · Score: 0

    Was on TMOUS for 10 yrs., limited data, shared minutes, initially because it was the best family plan with no roaming charges for about USD 164/4 lines. Then when TMOUS went "no-contract", I actually paid early termination fees for 2 of the lines to go "no contract" and it was well worth it. Now there are never overage charges, all unlimited text, talk and data (one line for my wife's iPhone has unlimited high-speed data at extra charge), 4 lines for less than USD 120. When my wife got the installment plan to buy an iPhone 5 last year for an extra 20/mo., our bill went up to a little less than we were paying. So essentially, beside the aforementioned unlimited upgrades, we got an extra unlocked iPhone 5 for my wife for the same amount we were paying previously and when its paid off in 24 mos., our bill will go down 20/month again. I sure hope no one buys TMOUS because they will nix these crazy pro-consumer plans in a heartbeat. Not affiliated with T-Mo in any way except as a happy customer.

    --
    www.chihuahuarescue.com- Help to end dog abuse, abandonment and cruelty
  13. I got in on the Virgin plan at the $25 level. If by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    ...I have a feeling I could sell the the number.

    I chuckle when people tell me they're paying $50 or more a month for a fricken' phone.

  14. I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recently saw a commercial for either AT&T or Verizon, can't remember which, and they were BRAGGING how you could SHARE 2GB/mo with up to 4 phones... and the price was rediculously high too... I just don't understand it. How do they have any customers with that kind of gouging?

    1. Re:I don't get it by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Because they target their advertising in a very smart and effective way. I'm embarrassed to say that I probably would not have known about the great improvements in prepay if it weren't for the fact that I am friendly with the janitorial staff at work. I'm simply not exposed to the same kind of advertising that they are. They have all of these fantastic, cheap phone plans (and phones!) for low-income people but they manage to keep it mostly a secret from the majority of the mid to high income people. Most people kind of smirk when I tell them I am on prepay - even after I explain how I pay $60/month where they pay $150 for effectively the same usage.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  15. I pay $30/year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't use mobile data, and I mostly use free VOIP when I'm at home, but for my actual cell phone I only pay $30/year with Page Plus.

  16. Re:T-mobile prepaid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It costs $0.10/minute (plus tax), I usually average just south of $10/mo.
    Last month I spent $2.47.

  17. Republic Wireless, but there are other options by RR · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are options from most of the carriers. I'm doing the Republic Wireless $10 unlimited talk and text, but with no data. Having a 4G phone with no data sucks, but the price is compelling, and I should be able to add a prorated data plan for the times when I expect I do need it. Having WiFi calls when I'm at a place with no cell reception is also nice. However, counting the phone, my bill is higher than if I had been able to keep my dumbphone on somebody's T-mobile family plan.

    Ting is a great choice for Sprint, Airvoice is a great choice for AT&T, PagePlus is decent for Verizon.

    One interesting option is FreedomPop, but they seem to be in beta. Earlier versions of FreedomPop phones had poor performance and very poor voice quality, but they're supposedly improving. It would be interesting to see if they go anywhere with that.

    --
    Have a nice time.
    1. Re:Republic Wireless, but there are other options by Jade_Butterfly · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For several years now I've been paying $80 per year for 2,000 minutes with Page Plus. I usually have a few hundred minutes left over at the end of the year, and leftover minutes are retained with continuous service. I've been pretty happy.

      My friends tell me that once I get a girlfriend, my low phone bills will be history. However, I've been enjoying my cheap phone service and laughing at my friends with girlfriends for years now.

    2. Re:Republic Wireless, but there are other options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There's a trick to saving a ton of money when your dealing with women or even really talkative people. Get them using text. Sign up for a google account. Go to google voice and pick whatever number you want from their list of available numbers. Enjoy unlimited texting via your google voice number for $0 as long as you live in the US.

    3. Re:Republic Wireless, but there are other options by markass530 · · Score: 1

      A 4G phone without data is not a 4G phone, it's not even a smartphone

    4. Re:Republic Wireless, but there are other options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My friends tell me that once I get a girlfriend, my low phone bills will be history. However, I've been enjoying my cheap phone service and laughing at my friends with girlfriends for years now.

      Are you friends all in their 40's or something? Only way they'd not be aware that young women hardly talk on the phone these days, they just text like crazy.

    5. Re:Republic Wireless, but there are other options by tepples · · Score: 1

      So if the term "smartphone" requires a valid cellular data subscription, is there an accepted term for a dumbphone and PDA in one device?

    6. Re:Republic Wireless, but there are other options by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Wifi? I pay for data, but the fact is that I don't really need to. Most of the time, I'm either sitting at work (with Wifi) or sitting at home (with Wifi). Even the train stations are plastered with "Xfinity" and friends.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re:Republic Wireless, but there are other options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a dumbass. With ubiquitous wifi, HTF is not having 4G service negating a phone being a smartphone? Go back to your Steve Jobs altar & light some more incense.

    8. Re:Republic Wireless, but there are other options by markass530 · · Score: 1

      Then you have androids version of an Ipod

    9. Re:Republic Wireless, but there are other options by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      But it still makes phone calls, unlike an iPod.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    10. Re:Republic Wireless, but there are other options by markass530 · · Score: 1
    11. Re:Republic Wireless, but there are other options by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      On the cellular phone network.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  18. Re:really? my bill is zero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL, trolling troll is trolly.

    BTW, I'm trolling anonymously, too, but I'm doing it ironically.

  19. pay as you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I switched to Boost Mobile. $2 a day for unlimited minutes, text and data on the days that I only use the phone. works on the Nationwide Sprint® Network. Of course, I hardly use the phone. :D

  20. Spin? by Tablizer · · Score: 0

    WSJ is in the back pockets of big businesses. How can we be sure this is not anti-competition (i.e, pro-oligopoly) propaganda?

    1. Re:Spin? by SeaFox · · Score: 2

      WSJ is in the back pockets of big businesses. How can we be sure this is not anti-competition (i.e, pro-oligopoly) propaganda?

      Yes, the WSJ is helping big business by pointing out to their customers the major carriers are raising rates on them. That makes perfect sense. -_____-

    2. Re:Spin? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      WSJ is in the back pockets of big businesses. How can we be sure this is not anti-competition (i.e, pro-oligopoly) propaganda?

      Yes, the WSJ is helping big business by pointing out to their customers the major carriers are raising rates on them. That makes perfect sense. -_____-

      Frog boiling my American friend.

      Get people riled up about high prices now, so they'll have less anger to expend when prices rise again in a few months. A shock about fears now lessens the shock when fears become reality.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    3. Re:Spin? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      But you don't tell the frog that you are boiling it.

      I suspect that the reason the "major carriers" are seeing their per-customer revenue increase is because they are losing their price-sensitive customers.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:Spin? by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      WSJ is in the back pockets of big businesses. How can we be sure this is not anti-competition (i.e, pro-oligopoly) propaganda?

      Because WSJs support to big businesses is in telling the people that run them the facts. That is why the WSJ can be trusted, because people (who make up the CEOs and boards of various big business companies) read it to determine where to put their money. If WSJ puts spin and prints propaganda and people base where they put their money on that info and lose it because it was falsified, there are going to be lots of mad billionaires. That includes honest criticism of same big businesses. WSJ may be pro-business, but they are about the best fact checking news provider that exists.

  21. Re:I got in on the Virgin plan at the $25 level. I by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same here. I hope they don't kill that account.

  22. Another possibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't RTFA, but is it possible that the increased competition has made more features available to some users? If a data plan, for instance, is suddenly within financial reach, it may be a net benefit even if the overall bill is increasing.

    1. Re:Another possibility by ne0n · · Score: 1

      no, it's because inflation is out of control. American phone bills are in line with all the other inflation taking place, even if Minitrue says otherwise.

      --
      $ :(){ :|:& };:
    2. Re:Another possibility by markass530 · · Score: 1

      citation ?

    3. Re:Another possibility by ne0n · · Score: 1

      Go shopping. If that doesn't convince you then forget you ever read this comment. The war with Oceania will be over soon anyway.

      --
      $ :(){ :|:& };:
  23. Buy a phone plans by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    I'm looking at these. They seem much less expensive with a payoff period of 3-4 months.

    All my friends were on this last ski trip and had no problem at Denver Airport or Winter Park.

    I'm currently on Sprint and had good service as well but there are three LARGE areas in houston that I travel through and there is essentially no service in those areas.

    I get good service at my home and in galveston tho.

    I recently cancelled AT&T basic line which was up to $40 (From $18 not that long ago)...
    and went with Magic Jack.

    It worked flawlessly for about 35 days. Then Comcast went down for a couple hours and after that the MJ didn't work for a little under 3 days (giving a 3002 error).

    I changed the ip, changed the cords, etc-- nothing worked.
    Then- it started working again and it's been flawless for a couple weeks.

    Good for a second line- but not something I'd like to count on. Also- my credit card company could process the touchkeys on the menu- but not when I entered the credit card number! Wierd, eh?

    But I mainly had the land line for long daytime 1-800 calls and to find my cell phone when I lost it. So MJ mostly works perfectly for that. Since I got it on a $20 off coupon- it cost me $29 total. I declined the 5 years for $19 per year until I know how the thing works. but $19 per year -- including long distance-- has got to put some pressure on AT&T and others.

    There are other, mildly more expensive VOIP solutions like MJ to that might be more reliable.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:Buy a phone plans by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Good for a second line- but not something I'd like to count on. Also- my credit card company could process the touchkeys on the menu- but not when I entered the credit card number! Wierd, eh?

      Possibly the MJ uses SIP INFO DTMF (or the equivalent) and the DTMF isn't being generated on the other end properly, or alternately, it doesn't and your DTMF sounded like poop and the menu system could handle it but some cc system you were handed off to couldn't.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  24. I pay too much :-( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My siblings and I are on our parents plan, yet, most of our calls are to each other, and therefore not deducted from our minutes. We barely use our actual minutes. Unfortunately I renewed my phone about 2-3 months ago, but I think this will be the last time for me, as my company just got me a phone. So now I have two cell phones with liberal plans and I barely use either.

  25. US cellphone service sucks by jonwil · · Score: 1

    Here in Australia I pay $19.99 per month and get $300 worth of cap value to use on everything except international calls, premium rate calls/SMS and international roaming. (3 services I never use)

    I also get 1000 minutes per month free calls to other people on the same MVNO plus 1GB of included data.

    I pay 40c per 30sec and 35c flagfall for normal voice calls, 25.3c for SMS, 50c for international SMS, 50c for national MMS, 75c for international MMS, 0.2c for 10kb data (above the 1GB included in my plan). $1.02 per minute plus 35c flagfall to 13/1300 numbers and 62c per minute plus 35c flagfall to 1800 numbers.

    I have never once in my reasonably heavy use of my phone (lots of mobile data, lots of calls etc) hit my $300 cap.

    Oh and I am not locked into a contract, nor does my provider care what phone I use or whether I use it for tethering. And they claim 98.5% population coverage with their network so I dont have to worry about coverage.

    Oh and as long as I continue to use the same company for ADSL service, I can get $5 off (making it $15.99 per month)

    All figures are in Australian Dollars.

    1. Re:US cellphone service sucks by mjwx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here in Australia I pay $19.99 per month and get $300 worth of cap value to use on everything except international calls, premium rate calls/SMS and international roaming. (3 services I never use)

      G'Day, Australian here.

      Allow me to explain how this works for our American friends.

      For the GP's $20 real Australian dollars he doesn't get $300 real Australian dollars worth of value, what he gets are $300 imaginary dollars. Australian telco's do this to obfuscate the real cost of services. So they can continue to pretend that a single SMS costs $0.25 and one minute of talk time costs $1.50 or data actually costs $0.20 per MB. In reality that cost is less than 1/15th of the advertised cost. The money has no real value in the outside world and is only valid for 30 days (or however long is stipulated by the contract). This way telco's can continue to confound the ACCC and regular consumers and bold faced lie about the true cost of services.

      I'm with Telstra who are shamelessly Australia's most expensive telco... but I don't mind. I'm on a pre-paid plan (PAYG) and for $30 real Australian dollars I get $250 imaginary dollars as well as 400 MB of data for 30 days. Phone calls are $0.90 per minute and SMS's are $0.29, but in reality I'm paying $0.06 per minute for voice calls and $0.019 per SMS taking into account that at $2 per MB the data is 45% of my cap. However if Telco's advertised the real cost of services, they wouldn't be able to get away with charging $0.30 per SMS in real Australian dollars when post-paid (contract) customers go over their cap (feel free to Google "Bill Shock" for sensationalist tabloid pieces about this).

      This is a far cry from some places where if you have so much as 1 Peso on your account you can send infinite SMS's. However in that land I also swapped towers 3 times walking from one end of my hotel room to the other so I guess there's a trade off. I'm not all that unhappy with Australian prices, it's more the deceptive advertising that I have an issue with.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:US cellphone service sucks by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I pay just shy of $1200 for 2 years here in the US and get unlimited data. Actual, real, unlimited data on LTE (~7-10Mbps). Plus more minutes than I can use (which is fairly few, admittedly, when you consider most of my minutes are free since their to same-carrier phones).

      Oh, and I get a new $800 phone every 2 years included in that price. So, on balance, about $16.67/mo if you count the phone. I'd go for the "bundled" internet to get a discount, but my carrier's internet isn't all that fast. If I quit at any point, I owe about 30% of the value of the phone on the day I receive it, should I decided to cancel my service, and that drops by 1.5% every month. Not that it matters, it's not like I'm going to get better coverage or more data for less money.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    3. Re:US cellphone service sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is your carrier and what does he do?

  26. No shit by Chas · · Score: 1

    Was at a client's site last week. She got a bill for $380 for two "business phone lines"!
    Two frickin' lines!

    She called AT&T and they "generously" offered to bring it down to $150/month if she bundled in DSL.
    For two freaking POTS lines!

    She's already on Comcast and already has a phone line through them. I told her to contact Comcast and have them tack on two phone lines. Total price increase. $-310 a month.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  27. Cell service. by Chas · · Score: 1

    Baiscally the phone companies seem to want one's cellular bill to hover around the "magical" $100/month.

    You can get 2, 3 , even 4 lines for $100/month.

    But try to get a $25-35 plan for a single line?
    Pfft. Yeah, right. Like that was going to happen.

    And Sprint is trying to upsell my company. We're grandfathered into a plan with no data caps. They keep trying to sell us a plan that's just SLIGHTLY above our current data usage (and we know our data usage is only increasing). The grand total savings? $7/month. They've been told in polite, but no uncertain terms that we'll be keeping our current plan.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  28. And the rest of the world is - again - laughing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....at the U.S.A.

    Nuf' said.

  29. Carriers are evil organisations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Carriers started as monopolies and they have never really changed.
    Now that there is 'competition' they are forming cartels. They are what I call 'natural'-cartels, they simply follow each other as they raise the prices.

    However a few years ago, some of the ex-CEOs of carriers in the Netherlands have stepped forward and admitted that they did actually meet with each other many years ago to make that deal: "raise your prices when I raise my prices".

  30. T-Mobile $30 unlimited everything by GrandCow · · Score: 1

    Back last year I used AT&T upping their rates to get out of my contract, 6 months into a 2 year contract. Had them unlock my phone and took it to T-Mobile. They have a web-only plan for $30/month that gives unlimited text/data and 100 minutes. $20 for their startup fee that included the sim card and activation, and another $20 to port the number to google voice and using that over data instead of minutes, I'm on unlimited everything for $30/month.

    Cheap phone service is easy if you're willing to put a couple hours into making it happen.

    --
    "Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
    1. Re:T-Mobile $30 unlimited everything by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      Using the same here, but sadly they've recently blocked tethering -- even if you're just tethering an Android tablet to your Android phone. (So effectively, simply increasing your screen size.) That rather kills the deal, for me -- unlimited data is pointless when you can only use that data on the phone itself.

    2. Re:T-Mobile $30 unlimited everything by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So use one of the number of alternate tethering methods?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:T-Mobile $30 unlimited everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found T-Mobile data coverage to be lacking outside metro areas. Also a lot of dead spots for voice calls in semi-remote areas. When it did work I was getting over 20 Mbs on their HSPA+ network, but pretty much Edge speeds when I got out of civilization (like anything 30 miles outside NYC)

      Had to go Straight Talk on AT&T to get good coverage. Seems to work everywhere even in my cabin in upstate New York where nothing else works (no t-mobile, Verizon, or Sprint coverage at all). It does cost more - $45 a month for 2.5 Gb LTE / 3G (drops to edge speeds after that), unlimited calls & text. Still about 1/2 of what AT&T would charge for an identical plan.

      I also used Pure Talk (also on AT&T) for $43 / month, but only got 1 GB data and they didn't support LTE.

    4. Re:T-Mobile $30 unlimited everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recall using an add-on for Chrome to trick out the T-Mobile web proxy to get around that. I'm sure a quick Google search will get you an answer on that.

        I also had to root my phone as my T-Mobile branded phone had an app on it to that would kill the tethering service.

    5. Re:T-Mobile $30 unlimited everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've used tethering on tmo walmart plan since day one. It still works to all my devices. On windows you just need to change browser's user agent. That's how they identify tethering. They don't use fancy methods like TTL of packets. If they do some day though, it's just a couple of lines in my phones iptables config.

      What really sucks on this plan though is speed when 5GB are exhausted. It's not 2G speed. It's a ridiculous 40-80 Kbps. And I have to tweak my tcp settings to really get those 80Kbps.

  31. Maximizing profit by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 2

    companies employ more and more psychologists and statisticians to extract the absolute maximum amount of wealth

    There's definitely a price/profit curve, the apex of which is the price that maximizes the seller's profit.

    If you were the owner of a struggling small business, wouldn't you try to find the sweet spot that maximizes your profit?

    If your honest answer is "no," then what price would you target --
          the price that gets you 50% of your potential profit?
          the price that gets you 10% of your potential profit?

    -- and why would you choose to "leave money on the table" like that, to the detriment of the family you provide for?

    If your honest answer is "yes," why should a large company act any differently than you would? In many cases the owners (shareholders) of a large company are just as needy as the owner of a struggling small business. Think a senior citizen who's very dependent on a pension, and the pension fund owns shares of Verizon. Should Verizon be "charitable" to its customers (many of whom are wealthy), to the detriment of its shareholders (some of whom are financially struggling)?

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
    1. Re:Maximizing profit by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Of course any rational person would try to maximize profit. That's fair. You know what else is fair? Taxes and regulations.

      Corporations have the right to maximize their profit in a given set of conditions. Society has the right to change those conditions.

    2. Re:Maximizing profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're asking the wrong questions: Should Verizon be pissing off its customers, resulting in many to leave to the competition - and not to the cheaper plans since they either do not know about them or value their time too much to stay with a company you have to convince to not overcharge you.
      Asking more than a fair price and different prices is always a risky business strategy, unless you have customers you know will not talk to each or you can easy split them into groups.

    3. Re:Maximizing profit by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      You know what else is fair? Taxes and regulations.

      Taxes and regulations certainly CAN be fair.

      There is, however, no real requirement on the part of lawmakers to make taxes and regulations fair.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:Maximizing profit by artor3 · · Score: 1

      No, they're always fair. If our premise is that it's "fair" for corporations to extract the maximum amount of wealth from people, then surely it is also "fair" for people to extract the maximum amount of wealth from corporations.

      It, again, comes down to willingness to pay. It is fair for the companies to raise prices as high as possible without scaring off their customer base. It is fair for government to raise taxes as high as possible without scaring off their tax base.

  32. TracFone by Kasar · · Score: 1

    It's cheap, a $20 card gives 600 minutes, 600 texts, and 600 MB of data with 90 days of service on Verizon in this area.
    ZTE phones however remind you of the "get what you pay for" adage with the single core processors if you're demanding enough to be downloading updates and doing anything else concurrently.

    --
    vi? Who's that?
    1. Re:TracFone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if it works. TracFone doesn't work where I live, and Verizon does.

    2. Re:TracFone by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 1

      Tracfone is great for people with light usage; those who just want a phone in their pocket to make that emergency (or semi-emergency, like "I'm in the store now; what was that thing you wanted me to buy again?") call. It is far less valuable for people who regularly use their phone for long conversations. And its data and messaging rates (and service) are terrible.

      Mind you, I fall into the former camp and am happy with my cheap TracFone. In those instances where I actually need to discuss things with people, I just wait until I get to a landline (either at work or at home), and there are enough free wi-fi hotspots around here that I rarely need worry about not having access to the Internet (anyway, I suffer from fat-finger syndrome, and would rather use a laptop than try to punch out a message on the tiny keyboard of a phone any day). And I pay less than $100 a year, which is less than some people pay per month.

      But it is definitely not a service for everyone.

  33. CH more expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Living in Switzerland I don't see how the US is very expensive. It is cheaper for me to get a T-Mobile contract from the US and roam all day than use a Swiss contract. The only reason I have not yet done so is that people would not be able to call me very easily, and with my Nexus 5, I am not going to swap my phone for a dual-SIM anytime soon.

  34. State of the "art" in Europe by ruir · · Score: 1

    Here mobile calls have already a lot of competition and some obscure operators more oriented to foreign people (go figure) give you extremely good rates like 7 euros/month call anyone you want, or just pay a load every 3 months. I estimate I am spending 5 euros/months for the mobile bill. The bill you can find with the official operators is around 15 euros/month, and if cheaper they rip you off in the cost of the calls. Mobile Internet is an huge rip off, and the magic number is (again) 15 euros for the bare minimum service 1GB per month (ridiculous). They also sell 4G services for around 50 euros month, where they used to advertise unlimited data, and in very small letters * this is subject to a responsible user policy*. It turns out their unlimited data, was just 15GB, which at 4G speeds latest you only to about half of the month. The regulator, whilst being a puppet, could not ignore more that situation, gave them a slap in the wrist, and now in the adverts they just dont display the caps of the service tier. I get by using wifi hotspots and our Internet at home, and dont even try to play that game.

    1. Re:State of the "art" in Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here in The Netherlands (Thats Europe)

      approx 15 E/month for unlimited data, some 300 min voice and 300 SMS.
      Only calling from other countries makes my bill come up higher.

      Must say, this is SIM-only. bought the Iphone upfront and not as is usual over here, as part of a subscription / loan.

      I think you US guys are getting ripped off. Long live free markets!!

    2. Re:State of the "art" in Europe by ruir · · Score: 1

      I bought my iphone 5S upfront from a friend that came from the US and paid 480 euros for it. One that does a little math, sees it quickly becomes 1200 euros when bought with an operator plan... And to me in Portugal a package similar to yours with 1GB of data cap would cost me 30 euros/month. I am paying around 5 euros per month for 40 minutes of free voice for the same operator, and like 16 cents/minute for other operators. Anyway, most of the time I use voip or skype at work or at home.

  35. Poland prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I pay about 15$ for unlimited minutes/sms within country and 1GB of internet.
    18 months contract without phone.

  36. Republic Wireless by EronCohen · · Score: 2

    I recommend Republic Wireless. $25/month gets you unlimited 3G (5 Gigs, then throttled to 2G) data, voice and texting on the Sprint Network. You have to purchase the phone outright (Moto X) and they hope but don't absolutely require that you offload to WiFi. The WiFi turns out to be a great feature because you can make calls and send texts seamlessly--great if you work in a basement or live in a bad cell area like I do. I wrote a blog posting about my experience here: http://www.eroncohen.com/2013/...

  37. I am also on T-Mo PAYGO by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I don't go out that much, thankfully. I have a Nexus 4 on a T-Mo SIM, replacing an Xperia Play (hey, it was a hundred bucks all in, including replacing the back plate.) Which is now my SIP phone, and I pay around ten bucks a month for that.

    The plan I'm using costs $2/day for unlimited everything, only on the days when you use it. It only has EDGE but the $3/day plan has fancier mobile data. Much of my driving around is in the sticks where the 3G coverage is crap anyway, and this is adequate for navigation with google maps.

    The only annoyance is having to pop out the SIM every time I want to try out a new ROM, since all of 'em default to mobile data enabled...

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  38. Ten quid a month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unlimited UK texts.
    1GB internet (that I can tether), good 3G coverage.
    500 minutes.
    Free calls to same network.

    4G coming... same deal.

    1. Re:Ten quid a month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Granted, you would not want to know how much it costs to rent where I do.

  39. Just knocked $30 off of mine and got more data by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    I dunno about everyone else, but AT&T not only just canceled the rest of my contract term, but also cut my bill by $30 and gave me 4GB more data.

  40. Re:I got in on the Virgin plan at the $25 level. I by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    I chuckle when people tell me they're paying $50 or more a month for a fricken' phone.

    I don't want to tell Americans what I get for $50 a month in my "2nd world" country...

    --
    No sig today...
  41. The Walmart Plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm in the process of switching to Wal-Mart $30 a month T-Mobile plan with unlimited data. Generally fuck Wal-Mart, but this is the one thing they seem to be getting right. There's not really a better deal out there.

    1. Re:The Walmart Plan by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      That's my plan. Only 100 talk minutes, but extra is only 10 cents per minute. I rarely spend more than $10 on extra minutes.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  42. My cell bill is fairly low by Kimomaru · · Score: 1

    I pay $30/month for 25 hours of talk and text with T-Mobile, but there's hardly a data plan (I think it's, like, 30mb/month). Suits me well since I don't use a smartphone. As soon as you set foot into the data plans, that's when things start getting expensive I think.

  43. T-mobile has changed the dynamics. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2
    I have been a long time customer of T-mobile, mainly because my brother and sister-in-law were in it and back then in-network and out-of-network mattered. But many of my friends switched to AT&T because their kids wanted iPhones.

    One of them told me yesterday, "I think I should send T-mobile a donation. AT&T has cut my price in half because of T-mobile". He was paying 300$ for five lines. AT&T reduced it to 160$ for unlimited talk and text and 10GB of high speed data, combined data quota, and hot spot ability, free international roaming at 128 kbps, free international texts.

    It is to be expected, there are no new killer must-have features on the new phones, and so the customers don't feel the need to run on the upgrade treadmill. So they days of giving a "free" phone at some 200% margin in installments to the customers are gone. US cell phone market is trending towards sanity now.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:T-mobile has changed the dynamics. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And AT&T / Verizon / insertanycarrierhere is still laughing all the way to the bank.

      It's like the advertisements for Car / Truck sales. " We're slashing $10,000 off MSRP !!!! "

      Translation: MSRP is ridiculously overpriced. We can slash $10k off the price and STILL make a profit selling this vehicle. Probably even more so since we'll sell far more vehicles than we would had if we kept the $10k price inflation in place.

  44. Of course. by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Obama's FCC purposefully is forcing the market so that only 2 carriers remain and they are free to do whatever they like. The only question remaining is how much will the state and Federal governments tack on in new taxes and tariffs.

    But the upside is that if you're a Sprint customer like me, there isn't any network at all so you will never experience any worsening of service. There is already no service.

    1. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Errything is OBAMA's fault. That's right.

    2. Re:Of course. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Oh, so that's why Obama's justice department sued to prevent T-Mobile from merging with AT&T.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:Of course. by gelfling · · Score: 1

      More or less. They're waiting for it to wither and die so either Verizon or AT&T can pick it up at fire sale prices. Deutsche Telekom has said repeatedly that they're losing money on it and may be forced to simply shut it down w/o a buyer if Obama repeatedly denies it the chance to merge with anyone, which is what they've done so far.

    4. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop huffing glue you stupid muppet.

  45. Cost per unit of voice/data has gone down by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Instead, the bills for customers on the major wireless providers have actually gone up, if not dramatically, in recent months — which means U.S. cell service remains much more expensive than it is in many other countries.

    Bills may have gone up but that doesn't mean you are paying more for the same stuff. I'm paying less for voice but I'm paying more for data in total. I'm also paying less per byte in data than I used to but I'm using more of it. My first cell phone bill was around $40/month (15 years ago) and only included a "massive" 40 minutes/month of voice calls before expensive ($0.70/minute) overage minutes kicked in. My bill reached a peak of about $100/month/phone recently but now I'm paying about $70 per phone for unlimited talk, text and more data than I use in a month. Plus I'm not even accounting for inflation.

    So yeah, my bill is higher but I'm getting a lot more in terms of data communicated per dollar and I expect that to continue to fall over time. The product the telecom companies are selling is a commodity so I expect prices to continue to fall unless we allow the companies to merge into a monopoly.

  46. Google Voice MMS ... in June? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ha! When will Google Voice start handling MMS, period? And no, changing it over to an email doesn't count.

    Google hasn't done anything with the product since they bought it... other than put their name on it.

    Google Voice will start handling MMS sometime after they shut down the ability to use it for VoIP in May and replace the SMS/MMS portion with Google+ Hangouts instead.

    You were looking for another reason to "upgrade" to using Google+, right?

    1. Re:Google Voice MMS ... in June? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I'd be willing to do that, even if I am sad that they threw out the Google Buzz way of social networking (I really enjoyed Buzz).

      To actually be able to use my Google Voice number would be awesome.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  47. The "good" old days by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Landline sound quality in 1975 was better than any mobile phone sound quality in 2014.

    Do you really want to go back to 1975? There was no such thing as mobile service. There also was for all practical purposes no data service. There was no voice mail and no answering machines. Text messaging didn't exist and email wasn't available outside of academia and some research labs. You had precisely one company to deal with in the US (AT&T) and they're weren't exactly friendly what with them being a monopoly and all. You would get charged an obscene amount of money to call anyone more than a few miles from your house and you didn't even want to think about the cost of calling someone outside your country. Rotary dial phones were still commonplace. And I'm old enough to remember all this.

    Yeah they had voice service that was optimized for voice and nothing else. Cell phones might have their problems but I'm not exactly eager to turn the clock back.

    1. Re:The "good" old days by c0d3g33k · · Score: 1

      I'm old enough to remember all this too. And despite the picture you paint of a horrible dystopia, things were just fine. We managed to communicate with each other and the world continued turning. And if you didn't make long-distance or out-of-country calls (because you didn't need to very often), you didn't have to pay those costs, so your monthly bill was quite small. In the modern utopia, I pay a monthly fee that's ten times that of the bad old days for services I need only occasionally, if at all, because I'm given no other choice. We don't need to turn the clock back, but we might want to reexamine what we accept as normal, because the value for money doesn't seem to be nearly as favorable now.

    2. Re:The "good" old days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like paradise as compared to the current hyper-connected ADHD society.

    3. Re:The "good" old days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. You forgot to mention:

      No idiots trying to drive down the freeway at 80mph while texting their buddies over stupid shit they did last night.
      No idiots lighting up half the movie theater while texting, talking, playing ( insert game of the week here ) on their phone
      No idiots talking at 130db into their phone right next to your table at the restaurant you decided to upon
      No one robbed your ass to steal your rotary phone back in 1975
      Tracking your movements and monitoring your data was a wee bit more difficult before cell phones (surprised the government doesn't subsidize costs for this alone )
      You had a monthly cost + LD cost for your landline. None of this bullshit tiered pricing crap, data overages, or piss poor coverage. You picked up the damn phone and you got crystal clear dial tone. Period.
      Today you still have a monopoly or, at best, a duopoly to contend with depending on if the competition wants to bother spending the $$$ to install the towers required. Back then, it was mandatory to install phone service to all locations. Today it is purely based on if they think they can make a profit on it or not.
      Take a cell phone away from anyone born after say . . . 1990 and they will show withdrawal symptoms within an hour or so. They can't possibly imagine life without that phone.
      The government absolutely loves this tech. It's the holy grail of surveillance. A remote operated GPS, microphone and video with data interception capability ? And the best part is, these people will LINE UP days in advance to buy them.

      Wireless tech is both the greatest and the worst idea ever conceived.

    4. Re:The "good" old days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BS on the no answering machines. Just not common, not nonexistent. Same with mobile, though it was handled through radio and was expensive.

    5. Re:The "good" old days by sjbe · · Score: 1

      ...despite the picture you paint of a horrible dystopia, things were just fine.

      It wasn't a "horrible dystopia". It was just an earlier time with more primitive technology which I have no desire to return to for a very slight improvement in the quality of voice calls. (which BTW I can still get if I use a POTS line) I rarely have any meaningful difficulty understanding the person on the other end of the line now and I can communicate a lot of other ways besides.

      We managed to communicate with each other...

      Far less efficiently than we do today. Sure we managed but it is easy to forget how limiting it was. Try it sometime. Turn off your cell phone and only communicate with a landline phone from your house. No internet, no text, no voicemail. If you don't come screaming back to the 21st century you are either on vacation or you are a luddite. :-)

      And if you didn't make long-distance or out-of-country calls (because you didn't need to very often), you didn't have to pay those costs, so your monthly bill was quite small.

      People didn't make those calls because it was too expensive to make them. It is a chicken and egg problem. You don't make the calls because it is too expensive and it doesn't get cheaper because you aren't making the calls. Furthermore all telecommunications were controlled by a single monopoly with very limited incentive to make things cheaper or better for customers. AT&T kept the long distance business after the breakup because that was where the money was at the time. The explosion in telecommunication services available mostly came after the breakup of AT&T. While it's hardly a utopia, I certainly get a lot more per dollar than I did 40 years ago.

      I pay a monthly fee that's ten times that of the bad old days for services I need only occasionally, if at all, because I'm given no other choice.

      "Ten times"? "No other choice"? Nonsense. First off I'm certain you are not accounting for inflation. $1 in 1975 is equivalent in purchasing power to $4.35 in 2014. Second, if you are going to compare, compare the cost of voice service only. You can get voice service on a cell phone for as little as $10/month in some places which is equivalent to $2.30 in 1975 once you account for inflation. If you tell me your phone bill was $2.30 in 1975 for nationwide calling I'm going to call you a liar.

  48. Regulated quasi-monopolies are the worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The roots of those high cellular prices go deep. I worked for one (bought out by AT&T) during the fourth cellular license allocations. One of our marketing team spent an entire day working spreadsheets trying to get our "costs" high enough to justify rates that'd already been set before a state agency. He added more and more people to the sales team. He gave them company cars etc. All to justify high rates with regulators. Sometimes I suspect the worst forms of business arise when there's no real competition and much that goes on is contriving added costs to get regulators to agree to the higher rates.
    That's probably why you see so much cellular advertising and so many stores. A lot of money is being spent to add just a small number of additional clients and, since they're all competing with their advertising, the money spent by Company A often merely cancels out that spent by Company B. And you see the same with cable TV and broadband. I live where there are two broadband suppliers. Almost weekly I get a flyer from one or the others. It's stupid. All I want is the lower rate. No amount of propaganda is going to make me pay more than I have to.

  49. It is a ripoff, indeed by ByzantineAlex · · Score: 1

    In Romania (which is in Europe), 5 euro (almost 7 US$) brings you about 2500 in-the-network national SMS/minutes + 200 out-of-network or international SMS/minutes + 50MB of data. For other usages, like higher data consumption, there are other plans/promotions. There are occasional bonuses as well, like unlimited minutes during a certain time-frame (say, 21 days). Of course, they still make lots of money, let's not pity them. So the North-American prices (especially the Canadian ones) are pure theft. Been there, done that. I was paying about 40$/month for an extremely light usage.

    1. Re:It is a ripoff, indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Romania (which is in Europe), 5 euro (almost 7 US$) brings you about 2500 in-the-network national SMS/minutes + 200 out-of-network or international SMS/minutes + 50MB of data.

      50MB? That's nothing! One site could have 50MB of images! Or did you mean GB?

    2. Re:It is a ripoff, indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But 50MB is a lot for emails, messages, etc. And if a page of a mobile website has 50MB of images, you better hope it's a "designer/art" website otherwise you're doing it wrong.

    3. Re:It is a ripoff, indeed by ByzantineAlex · · Score: 1

      No, I really meant 50MB. Yes, I know it's VERY little data, almost nothing, but I have specified that for data there are other options (plans). This is for talking only, with VERY occasional wireless access. But still... This is 7$. I don't really use mobile data, since I can find wifi pretty much anywhere in the city (stores, malls, coffee shops, restaurants, etc), so approx 7$ covers a month of phone usage. I would say it's reasonable. Now calculate the profits made at the American tariffs. On the other hand, yes, I know, the up-front investment on the infrastructure was huge at the scale of both Canada and US (Romania is only the size of Colorado) - but that investment should have been amortized by now, I assume.

  50. The old AT&T were a bunch of evil pricks too by sjbe · · Score: 1

    I don't know how old you are but Ma Bell was nowhere near as evil as today's AT&T and Verizon.

    Bullshit they weren't. My father and grandfather worked for Ma Bell for over 50 years between the two of them (both as line installers and in engineering) and I'm old enough to remember them pre-breakup. I've seen them operated behind the scenes and my father can tell you in great detail what a bunch of evil pricks they could be.

    Ma Bell was a regulated monopoly with many constraints on what it could do.

    Regulated yes. Constrained? Not so much. AT&T had vast power back in the day. Certainly more than Verizon and AT&T do currently, who BTW are also still regulated quasi-monopolies at least for some of the services they provide. The old AT&T basically monopolized all telephone and data communications in the US and I assure you that they behaved accordingly.

    The Bell System was broken up in 1982 by a lawsuit brought by Northern Telecom because they wanted to sell the DMS-100 in the US.

    The reasons for the breakup were FAR more complicated than wanting to sell some gear made by Nortel. Primarily AT&T wanted to get into the computer business but the breakup ultimately was the end result of an 8 year anti-trust suit begun in 1974 over the issue that AT&T was accused of using its Western Electric subsidiary (now Lucent, Agere, Avaya and some other companies) to subsidize the cost of their network. Essentially they were using one monopoly to maintain another.

  51. Re:I got in on the Virgin plan at the $25 level. I by afidel · · Score: 1

    Yeah except you can't keep that price and get a decent handset, that's why I just switched the wife over to Republic Wireless, same $25/month but she can use a non-sucky phone (Moto X) instead of her cruddy Optimus V on Virgin Mobile plus she now gets unlimited voice, twice as much data, and roaming to Verizon.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  52. Re:Freedompop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use FreedomPop semi regularly in the NYC metro area. I got the older device that does 3/4g for $40. Pay $4ish per month to get 3g service. 500mb free. It rocks!
    As a programmer, I have a pretty good feel for how much data i use and never go over. If you do text (google voice), email, minimal web, and the infrequent voip call, you will never use more.

  53. Re:$35 unlimited everything from Boost. Phone subs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had $50/month (unlimited everything) with Boost Mobile and ended up switching last month to $25/month (unlimited everything) with Republic Wireless. Both under a "no subsidy, average-ish phone" plan.

  54. Re:I got in on the Virgin plan at the $25 level. I by JazzLad · · Score: 1

    I pay $13.99/mo (no taxes/fees). $10/mo to ATT MVNO Airvoice for 250min/mo with rollover (which I never come close to using all of), Google Voice for all my SMS (unlimited) and the rare times I'm not on WIFI I have a $3.99/mo Freedompop 3g/4g Mifi (free if only 4g but Wimax coverage is spotty so I pay for 3g). The Mifi is only 1GB/mo, but like I said, it's rare I'm on in WIFI coverage anyway.

    It's not for everyone, but it's great for me.

    --
    "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
  55. Re:T-mobile prepaid by JazzLad · · Score: 1

    At that level of usage, you might look at Page Plus (VZW MVNO); I pay $10 3 times a year for (each of) my kids' phones. It's 10c/min but no additional taxes (there is a 50c deduction per month service fee), so they basically get 20min/mo with roll-over. Not sure it would be any better for you, but the coverage is great (statistically) and I think it's always worth looking at options.

    You can use any post-paid VZW phone except the iPhone (last I checked, they might be able to use the iPhone now, doesn't affect me). They also have an $80/yr 2000min plan that amounts to 4c/min (and under $7/mo) which I used to use - a great deal!

    --
    "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
  56. Straight Talk wireless is an option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $45/month "unlimited" talk/text/data and they have phones for ATT, VZW, or TMO networks so you can pick which network is best for your coverage area. But you have to very careful in researching for yourself the phone. Do lots of internet searching and follow what others have proven will work. You cannot get a straight answer from straight talk themselves about which handsets work on which networks and whether or not your BYOD will even work thru them. Getting the phone and account set up with them can also be a pain in the ass, especially if you're trying to BYOD, but once you're finally set up, things work pretty well. Just keep in mind that you need to try to avoid involving ST's customer support as much as possible because it's worse than terrible.

  57. Speed? by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

    What most of these posts don't advertise is their actual speed of connection. Today with smartphones, LTE should be standard. But most of these cheap plans are MVNO's reselling cheaper 3g plans as most major carriers don't resell their LTE plans only 3G/3G+/4G (latter being marketing). While fine for those driven primarily by cost, it's not ok for those that want speed. That and they use their own definition of "unlimited" or even the 2/3/5 GB plans they offer where they knock you down to Edge speeds after a certain amount.

    So you're telling me if I don't use my phone, my bill will be cheaper!

    1. Re:Speed? by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      This leads me to wonder... is my phone/carrier really that shitty?

      I'm still using my old Samsung Galaxy S2 (Epic 4G Touch) on Sprint. I disabled the 4G radio a long time ago, as it never connected to anything. Occasionally I'll flip it back on to see if Sprint has actually invested in improving their infrastructure. At home, nothing. At work, nothing. At JFK, EWR, ATL, or any other large international airport I happen to find myself, nothing. I've never gotten a 4G connection outside of the Sprint Store (presumably they have a femtocell set up to show off how awesome 4G is).

      So I'm stuck with ancient 3G connections, right? Well, maybe. Maybe if I'm in a large city. I'm generally excited to see that I have a 3G connection, since that happens pretty rarely. I spend most of my time with 2G 1xRTT connections. Of course, that's assuming I have any data connectivity at all. In 2014. In the backwater hills known as central New Jersey, in a town that is identified by name as a part of the New York metropolitan area.

      So Sprint has shitty coverage and ancient infrastructure. My fault for choosing them, right? But let's say I'm fine with terribly slow connections. Let's say that 2G speeds are all I need, that 100kbps is perfectly fine for sending emails and browsing slashdot. But am I even getting those speeds? Why the fuck does it take upwards of a minute to load slashdot's front page? Is there really about 1MB of html, css, javascript, and textual content that I'm pulling down? No, see, the Sprint network is really that oversubscribed. It's slower than dialup, by a long shot.

      I'm paying roughly $90/month for my unlimited talk/text/data plan with Sprint. Unlimited data is especially hilarious, as I'm pretty sure I could max out the connection 24/7 and still never hit the caps that other carriers have, solely because of how slow this shit is. I've been out of contract for a few months, and this thread is of particular interest to me, as I desperately want to change carriers.

      However, to say that MVNOs piggybacking on the Sprint network are somehow a bad deal because they don't do 4G or LTE, well, that's just not right. Sprint doesn't do 4G or LTE, at least not in any meaningful way. By going with an MVNO, you're really not losing anything. Or maybe I'm just bitter that my S2 has a WiMax radio for its "4G".

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  58. Advertising in a federal system by tepples · · Score: 1

    Some of these perks are necessary in the federal system that the United States adopted in the 1780s. How else should carriers advertise across state lines when these regulatory costs differ from state to state?

    1. Re:Advertising in a federal system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not surprising someone puts the word "Libertarian" in a sentence and behold, here comes Slashdot's #1 Libertardian sock puppet Tepples. White knighting for great Justice! And by white knighting, I mean choking on your master's cock.

  59. Slightly better than garbage... by rabbin · · Score: 1

    ...is still garbage. We Americans should not feel at all good about how badly we're getting fleeced by the telecoms just because someone else has it worse, just as an American McDonald's worker shouldn't brush off their own depressing work conditions after witnessing work conditions in the third world. That kind of thinking is a race to the bottom.

    Americans will not see fair prices for phone service until we accept that utilities like phone service are a natural monopoly and that the government must step in to to force sufficiently competitive conditions. Break up the oligopoly. Force them to act as common carriers. Separate the ownership of transportation mediums from those providing the actual service and compel them to allow many companies to compete over the same medium. Subsidize infrastructure build out where it is not normally profitable (like any other utility). Forbid vertical integration with, e.g., content companies so to avoid the blatant conflict of interest. Stop outlawing municipal broadband. So many other countries have made these exact structural changes with extremely successful results, much in the way that many of these same countries have very successful healthcare systems that the US also refuses to emulate.

    Of course none of these changes will occur unless we take care of our corrupt political system ( http://www.represent.us/ ). Politicians will claim there is "no political will" which translates to "I don't want to be decimated by the telecoms' campaign money and PR offensives next election" and perhaps "maybe I'd like to quadruple my salary by becoming a telecom lobbyist in my later years". But I'm digressing...

    And the "As a single parent" line sounds like something from your typical shill script and is rather out of place on Slashdot--especially since it's coming from an AC.

  60. They vary from state to state by tepples · · Score: 1

    It would make life much easier if they forced the mobile providers to quote the prices inclusive of the taxes.

    After rattling off the prices for every county in the United States that assesses a sales tax, the ad would have to become tens or hundreds of times longer than it is today.

    1. Re:They vary from state to state by usuallylost · · Score: 1

      My thinking was more along the lines of you enter your zip code and system gives you an all inclusive price including your local taxes. Rather than a large disclaimer.

  61. Straight Talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On Straight Talk (using the AT&T service).

    $45 month: 2.5 GB LTE / 3G data (slows down after that), unlimited talk + text. About half what a similar AT&T no contract plan would cost.

    Was on the $30 / month unlimited T-Mobile plan but found data & voice service pretty bad outside metro areas.

  62. Re:really? my bill is zero by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    That line worked 10 years ago, but the pay phones are all gone. You need to pay a little bit per year to keep a phone in the glove box just for occasional use. Or you can do what my in-laws do and just borrow strangers' phones! LOL.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  63. one word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trac Phone. $100/year and more time than I will ever use.

  64. The majors think they have no competition by neminem · · Score: 1

    That is because they have their fingers in their ears. I've been gradually getting everyone I know to switch to Ting like I did. Or at least, if they really do need an unlimited plan, telling them to stop using freaking overpriced Verizon or AT&T, because seriously why would you do that? Pay twice as much for worse service than one of the 50-bucks-or-so unlimited plans? I rarely use more than the smallest tier, though, so I definitely do *not* need an unlimited plan. As such, I generally pay Ting about 15 bucks a month, and enjoy customer service that's almost unheard of these days (i.e. if you have a problem, they'll actually fix it, instead of passing you around a dozen times and then hanging up on you.)

    1. Re:The majors think they have no competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no. The carriers that once worked with one another are now posturing to poach one another. The competition is there and the major carriers now know it. If they don't do something about it, they'll lose their bread and butter profits. ( Wireless is it btw )

      In fact, AT&T is rolling out fiber to the business ( known as Project Velocity Ip ) because of one thing and one thing only. Google. Trust me when I tell you any
      and all funding is now directed to this project. It takes precedence over damn near anything else.

      Google announced it was going to start offering Fiber to location X and it lit a roaring fire under AT&T's ass. They KNOW if they don't get out ahead of it, and Google actually deploys said network, they'll lose customers in droves.

      Of course, on the flip side, Google is smart enough to know what reaction said announcement would cause with the major carriers. It may have been a bluff to make folks like AT&T get off their ass and start offering newer / better tech. Only Google will ever know though :D

  65. Going Down by strangeattraction · · Score: 1

    Because I buy no contract phones that are GSM I am part of the only real competitive network in North America. ATT vs T-Mobile. ATT's 3 billion contribution to my plan now means I pay $50 (1st line) + $30(2nd line) + $10(3rd) all with data, text and talk. Previously 2 lines cost me $175 under contract. Thank you ATT.

  66. Re:Straight Talk by strangeattraction · · Score: 1

    Straight talk uses T-Mobile

  67. Cross-border shipping by phorm · · Score: 1

    I'll see your unlisted rental/phone fees and raise you... UPS. You pay for a package to be shipped to you, based on the weight, size, destination and description of contents provided by the seller.
    Package crosses the border.
    Border agent charges you a small amount to cover taxes, and then *doubles* the cost of your package in brokerage. Sometimes they'll ding you at the doorstep, sometimes you'll get an unexpected "present" in the mail in the form of some butt-puckering bill.

    Fedex is similar in fees.

    USPS/Canada-Post do not screw you this way. In the odd case where they do charge you fees, they're much more reasonable.

  68. Maximizing tax revenue by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    You know what else is fair? Taxes and regulations.

    Not always. For example, airline deregulation was a good thing. "In 1974 the cheapest round-trip New York-Los Angeles flight (in inflation-adjusted dollars) that regulators would allow: $1,442. Today one can fly that same route for $268." -- Stephen Breyer, who worked with Ted Kennedy on airline deregulation in the 1970s

    With tax rates, like with prices charged to consumers, there's a sweet spot that maximizes long-term government revenue. A government that goes above that rate is being worse than unfair; it's shooting itself in the foot because even as it's imposing very burdensome tax rates on the people whose economic liberty it should be protecting, it's not generating as much revenue as it could.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
    1. Re:Maximizing tax revenue by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      With tax rates, like with prices charged to consumers, there's a sweet spot that maximizes long-term government revenue.

      Beyond the "higher than the sweet spot" morality issue, is it even moral for the government to set tax rates that maximize its revenue?

      I would argue that the only moral tax rate is the one that maximizes the rate of growth of the standard of living of the people.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  69. Talk ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... and an occasional SMS. That's all I need.

    I'd consider an MVNO, but they can't beat my plan ($25 every 3 months). So I could get a smart phone and use data over WiFi when available. But I'm not sure if AT&T will pull their mandatory data plan B.S. even for wholesale customers. I just don't need data that much and I'm not likely to be shot for my flip-phone.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  70. MVNO Guide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wrote an ebook/guide to MVNO's and how to save yourself about $1k per year by going off-contract, and bringing your own phone to an MVNO, like StraightTalk (and others). If you want to check it out... https://leanpub.com/StraightTalkGuide

  71. TracPhone, Smartphone, $7/month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a TracPhone. Old Samsung smartphone, obtained through slickdeals.org and the home-shopping-network. $7/month for 180 minutes, 180 texts, & 180 MB. WiFi supported. Haven't come close to hitting those limits yet. Min/Txt/MB values roll over month to month. Totally anonymous spy-like burn phone if I so choose. (I didn't. Tied it to my gmail account.)

    Granted, I like *never* use my cell phone. And I'm an old foggy so I still have a landline. (No cell reception at home.) But there are cheaper options...

  72. same... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but I'm on an older t-mo plan that they no longer offer, $30/m for 100m voice(so it doesn't get used alot for voice just the necessary or voip), unlimited messaging, "unlimited" data 5GB @ 4G then it drops to 3G... never overrun the data yet, but I prefer to have more data than voice.

    Drawback is well, T-mo's coverage sucks even worse than AT&T's and Sprint's. Verizon's stil the 10 trillion pound gorilla in coverage terms...

    MVNOs: I'd watch those, if they're anything like sprint's they're only allowed access to a subset of the original carriers, e.g. sprint's, "towers", so sucky coverage to begin with is already more sucktacular in some areas...

  73. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  74. in the DFW area by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm like, WTF is DFW?

  75. Tracfone and CenturyLink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My cell phone costs are completely controllable with Tracfone. My CenturyLink landline bill hasn't changed in three years and is guaranteed for another two. I cannot comprehend paying $150/month for cell service as some families do.

    creeper

  76. Let Me Tell You How Evil AT&T Is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When my son was a teenager, admittedly fifteen years ago, he ran up over three thousand dollars in charges to phone sex lines. Not only did AT&T eat all of those charges, THEY are the ones who caught the problem and called us.

    If I used my cell phone more it would be on AT&T. Right now, my Tracfone number is an AT&T network number and it works fine.

    As for my CenturyLink land line, that will be the other thing they pry from my cold, dead fingers.

  77. What's Surprising Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is the sheeple's willingness to put up with such crappy quality for the convenience of mobile communication. This is not progress.

    creeper

  78. Going down... by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

    My monthly bill has been going down. Three times in the last year, and, during that same time frame, the services I am provided have increased (either during a drop in my bill, or outside of a drop in my bill where my bill didn't change). But T-Mobile's been pretty good about that.

  79. Funny, they were against cell phones at the start by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    It is easy to see how the phone companies were upset with cell phones and how it cost less than a wired grid combined with a history of new cheaper technology maintaining similar profits drove prices down and hurt the old businesses.

    But then they realized it was an opportunity and they embraced the change and exploited it as opposed to fighting or ignoring it (like the power companies are doing.)

    Now they have people paying MORE for service that costs them less to maintain; their profits have gone up significantly the whole transition period. Naturally, due to the stock market they will never let go of these profits despite the competition, all the players have publicly traded stock value to maintain.

  80. Re:Straight Talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Straight Talk does both AT&T and T-Mobile. You pick out which one you want when you order the SIM.

  81. The audience doesn't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bills may have gone up but that doesn't mean you are paying more for the same stuff.

    People don't care about that. Just like people bitch that data costs too much, even though 1 GB is more data than a 2,000 minutes of voice.

  82. VM Plans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.virginmobileusa.com/cell-phone-plans/beyond-talk-plans/overview/

    The official VMUSA site shows $35 for 300 minutes. Was 400 an error, or do you have a promo/plan that's not shown?

  83. Re:Straight Talk by PincushionMan · · Score: 1

    From what I understand, it depends on the area of the country you live in. So it is possible to be on "T-Mobile" Straight Talk in some areas and "AT&T" Straight Talk in other areas.

    In my area, it was possible (for a while) to run locked AT&T phones on straight talk. They've stopped, because some folks were taking the pay as you go smartphones, using them maybe a month, and quickly switching to Straight Talk.

  84. Re:really? my bill is zero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Odd, I just saw one yesterday actually. Right in front of a convenience store in Arizona.

  85. Eeep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use open scanning to hunt WiFi first if downloading because that's the only limit and it's easy to find open WiFi, but it does not really matter when you can use the tools installed on BackTrack that destroys WiFi encryption. I'd use the tools on DSL (50MB) or Puppy (100MB) though, since they're way more compact.

  86. Fuck beta by CauseBy · · Score: 1

    I came here to engage in this conversation. I am leaving because of Beta. I will not read stories presented with Beta. It sucks.

    Today the reason is because I tried to use the "Parent" link and I got "Coming soon!" Coming soon? What the fuck are you talking about? Don't you think you should write that feature before foisting Beta onto users?

    You are successfully driving me away, Slashdot. It's been fifteen years, and I can see the end coming.

  87. AIO wireless by SiChemist · · Score: 1

    I switched from Verizon (~$80/month including a company discount) to AIO wireless at $45/month. That $45 gets me unlimited minutes and texts and 2.5GB of "high speed" data (4Mb/s on HSPA, 8Mb/s on LTE) and unlimited data at 256Kb/s after the 2.5GB limit has been exceeded. No contract. It uses AT&T towers, so I have great coverage. I am very happy with the service.

  88. Noninteractive advertisement mediums by tepples · · Score: 1

    You can't have the audience enter a postal code before seeing prices on a print ad, radio ad, or TV ad. Nor can you have the viewer enter a postal code before seeing prices on a web ad if the viewer has chosen not to be tracked.

  89. Worst analogy ever by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    It is fair for the companies to raise prices as high as possible without scaring off their customer base. It is fair for government to raise taxes as high as possible without scaring off their tax base.

    When goods or services are sold, the transaction is completely voluntary for both buyer and seller. Furthermore, multiple sellers typically compete for the buyer's business on the basis of price and/or quality.

    When government collects taxes, the transaction is completely compulsory and coercive. (Can you name one person or business who, if they got a letter from the IRS stating this year's tax payment was waived, would voluntarily send in the money anyway?) There are never multiple governments competing for the taxpayer's money, on any basis.

    Do you really fail to see how the completely different nature of these transactions completely invalidates your analogy?

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
    1. Re:Worst analogy ever by artor3 · · Score: 1

      I knew you would make that argument, people always do. But it's deceptive. You don't have a choice to buy most things in life. You cannot live in most places without a car, a phone, clothing, food, shelter, etc. You might have a couple different companies to choose from, but they'll all converge on a similar pricing model, because they're all trying to maximize profit in the same environment.

      So what are you gonna do? Live off the grid? That's not a choice for the vast majority of people. If even 0.1% of people tried it, there would be a mass die-off. The world wasn't able to support more than a few million people before modern society, and it hasn't gotten any better. So what are the other 7,140,000,000 people going to do?

      There are never multiple governments competing for the taxpayer's money, on any basis.

      Are you fucking kidding me? Nearly every country in the world competes for taxpayer's money. Everyone is constantly offering tax breaks to this company or that, trying to get them to come build factories. Companies headquarter themselves in a PO box in a low tax nation. Millionaires constantly threaten to move, and occasionally do, in response to income taxes. Even regular people move out of high tax states like Massachusetts and California.

      Seriously, you can argue opposing points if you wish, but don't just go making shit up.

    2. Re:Worst analogy ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't matter if his analogy sucks. All you are doing is making excuses for the lowlife rat fink bastards that run America (the corps). You are enabling and facilitating their bullshit "fuck you I got mine" mentality and I frown on your shenanigans.

    3. Re:Worst analogy ever by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

      The fact that I need to eat in no way diminishes the voluntary nature of my transaction with Burger King. Unlike the IRS, Burger King makes no threats of fines, penalties, or imprisonment if I choose not to spend money there. How wacky for you to make a leap from this to "living off the grid."

      Are you fucking kidding me? Nearly every country in the world competes for taxpayer's money.

      To spell out the obvious for you, pottymouth, in any given jurisdiction within the U.S., there is only one federal government, only one state government, only one county government, and (at most) only one municipal government skimming off the top of the transactions that take place in that jurisdiction, or levying taxes on the properties in that jurisdiction. A starkly different situation from, say, buying a laptop, where 20 local retailers and a thousand online retailers are competing for my money.

      --
      That that is is that that that that is not is not.
    4. Re:Worst analogy ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So do you deny, AC, that when goods or services are sold, the transaction is completely voluntary for both buyer and seller? Or that when government collects taxes, the transaction is completely compulsory and coercive?

      You've placed yourself in a bad situation, AC. If you deny these facts, you lose all credibility. If you don't deny these facts, you agree with what you've called "shenanigans."

  90. Re:really? my bill is zero by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    Does it work?

    If so, then they missed one.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  91. Well, obviously... by stephenmac7 · · Score: 1

    Inflation is a big part of it.

    --
    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
  92. I also recently switched to republic wireless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I switched to Republic Wireless after being with Sprint for 14 years. Used 5 year old Sanyo phones. Plan was $25 for 300 base minutes, with no text or data plan. The phone basically pays for itself after one year on the $25 plan.

  93. Density, density, density by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

    A big factor in the quality and price of cell service is population density. Density matters because it is directly related to the cost of providing service. Lots of people in a small area are less expensive to serve than a population spread out over a large area.

    Europe (the entire continent), the USA, and Canada all have roughly the same land mass. Europe has a bit over twice the population of the US. Canada has just over one-tenth the population of the US. The ranking of their price and quality of service matches their rank of density. Want even better prices than you can get in Europe? Try Japan or South Korea, which have population densities considerably higher than Europe. Want to pay a lot? Move to Australia, which has population density similar to Canada.

  94. The only thing that's becoming less affordable... by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    is it even moral for the government to set tax rates that maximize its revenue?

    A great question. And think about this: thanks to incomes growing faster than the rate of inflation, basic commodities, like a gallon of milk, consume a significantly smaller fraction of a family's income than they did a generation ago. And that effect is orders-of-magnitude larger for technological commodities, like a gigaflop of computing power.

    Government services, too, ought to be costing a smaller fraction of a family's income. (Especially because government uses technology to provide its services. Most government workers sit in front of a computer all day.) But government services are about the only thing that is bucking the trend, and consuming a larger fraction of a family's income!

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.