Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
ATT cuts prices, still more expensive than TMobile
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

 
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16090
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:14 am    Post subject: ATT cuts prices, still more expensive than TMobile Reply with quote

Good to see TMobile is having an impact.

AT&T cuts wireless prices

Quote:
[AT&T] called the offer its best-ever. It estimated monthly savings between $40 and $100 for a family of four. A plan that includes 10GB of data, unlimited minutes and unlimited texting would cost $160 per month.

Similar offers are available for $260 per month at Verizon Wireless, at least $220 per month at Sprint, and $140 per month at T-Mobile (TMUS), according to information on each company's website.

_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1217
Location: Jefferson, USA

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It was about time for them to do that. Maybe other companies in different sectors will learn.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mdeininger
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 1738
Location: Emerald Isles, overlooking Dublin's docklands

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fun fact: in Krautland T-Mobile is the most expensive provider you can find, with the worst possible service no less. It's like they're not even trying around here.

Funny to see how people just don't give a rat's arse on home turf.
_________________
"Confident, lazy, cocky, dead." -- Felix Jongleur, Otherland

( Twitter | Blog | GitHub )
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16090
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That is amusing. But I think the US unit is operated completely separately. And with the MetroPCS buyout of TMobile, I think the plan includes DT divesting itself of the company. Which is also amusing since it finally seems to be making some headway.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Voltago
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 2534
Location: In the city of the dreaming spires

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For the record, the cheapest unlimited data service I've found here in GB offered by T-Mobile is 21 quid, that would be something like 30 dollars. So there. Only reason I can think of for this is that there is so much more area to cover in the US, so basically the urbanites are cross-subsidizing Cleetus' and Liane's mobile bill. Maybe smaller companies that focus on the population centers offer cheaper contracts?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16090
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've never used one of the local smaller companies, but I can't imagine they can charge much less. They still have to provide a lot of infrastructure for the coverage, and they have fewer customers to absorb the costs.

Honestly, I think the main reason for the high costs is because they can. Customers are willing to pay the prices they charge, so there is no incentive to lower prices. TMobile, and in my opinion to a lesser degree Sprint, are trying to compete on cost, but only because they have little choice. They need customers.

So far I don't trust SoftBank/Sprint. There have been no public strategic moves that I've seen. If their plan is to maintain the status quo regarding Sprint's prior strategies, then I don't want to see them buy TMobile. On the other hand, if they were to go with a <$50/mo, no contract 5GB/mo plan, I might take their "combined competition" more serious. At a minimum, SoftBank would need to match what TMobile is already offering.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mdeininger
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 1738
Location: Emerald Isles, overlooking Dublin's docklands

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

*nod* agreed. Around here T-Mobile (and T-Online, etc) have the advantage of being the "default" carrier and ISP for a lot of users because they used to be the only ones allowed to provide the services back in the days. Obviously things have changed, and new users (e.g. the younger generations) tend to not sign up with them, but as long as they have their immense user base over 50 there's no need for them to worry about their market share, so they don't have any incentive to compete.

I do find it fascinating to see the situation in the US being the exact inverse, with T-Mobile being the underdog and AT&T being the default.
_________________
"Confident, lazy, cocky, dead." -- Felix Jongleur, Otherland

( Twitter | Blog | GitHub )
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16090
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually, Verizon is the "default" for mobile. They have the largest customer base with ATT being #2. Also, ATT isn't the ATT of old (one of its monopoly breakup offshoots bought the name and decided to keep it). It is kind of amusing to see how much has reformed, given the current lack of meaningful competition.

Personally, I'd put all mobile bandwidth into a holding company designed to maintain and improve infrastructure, including R&D. Any company wanting to use bandwidth would have to pay for usage.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mdeininger
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 1738
Location: Emerald Isles, overlooking Dublin's docklands

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
Personally, I'd put all mobile bandwidth into a holding company designed to maintain and improve infrastructure, including R&D. Any company wanting to use bandwidth would have to pay for usage.
I think they're sort of trying to do that around here with all sorts of formerly state-monopolised infrastructure, but it rarely works out because either the holding company turns out to be a daughter company of the former monopolist, or everyone increases their end-user prices citing "infrastructure costs". It'd be neat in principle though, I'd love to see it done properly somewhere so we'd have a reference implementation to get it right sometime in the future.
_________________
"Confident, lazy, cocky, dead." -- Felix Jongleur, Otherland

( Twitter | Blog | GitHub )
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16090
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Obviously the holding company would have to be independent. Transparency in the billing process would be necessary. The "access" cost would be a set, public price. Anything above that would be each company's cost of providing service.

Since I don't need most of the crap the carriers offer, it could reduce costs significantly.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mdeininger
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 1738
Location: Emerald Isles, overlooking Dublin's docklands

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
Obviously the holding company would have to be independent. Transparency in the billing process would be necessary. The "access" cost would be a set, public price. Anything above that would be each company's cost of providing service.

Since I don't need most of the crap the carriers offer, it could reduce costs significantly.
I couldn't agree more. I'm not sure we'll ever see something like this in practice, but that's precisely how it should be.
_________________
"Confident, lazy, cocky, dead." -- Felix Jongleur, Otherland

( Twitter | Blog | GitHub )
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wildhorse
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 148
Location: Estados Unidos De América

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since we are at it, split the network access provider from the provider of "value-added service", whatever the latter may be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16090
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mdeininger wrote:
I'm not sure we'll ever see something like this in practice, but that's precisely how it should be.
Certainly not in the US. The carriers would give up just enough to avoid losing control. I'm hoping in the next 10 years or so, mobile access becomes a commodity. Maybe Google can figure out a free version the others are forced to try competing with (I'd pay for no ad interference).
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum