1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!

Why no sub-$40 plans

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by NeoTrinity, Sep 20, 2003.

  1. tristero

    tristero Guest

    In article <3F6D518C.4060404@REMOVEMEhotmail.com>, About Dakota wrote:
    > I'm not sure where you live


    I live in a culturally enlightened and relatively sophisticated
    east-coast city of medium size.

    But it really couldn't matter less where either you or I happen to
    live. Your point, that a tiny minority of Americans have no choice of
    provider, doesn't have all that much relevance in general imo, given
    the numbers involved. In this specific case it's moot altogether: the
    OP stated quite plainly that there _was_ competition where he lived,
    and that they had better (base) prices than Verizon.



    > Moral of the whole story: markets vary


    I think the moral of the story is that tiny markets have tiny clout
    and little relevance.



    › See More: Why no sub-$40 plans
  2. tristero wrote:
    > In article <3F6D518C.4060404@REMOVEMEhotmail.com>, About Dakota wrote:
    >
    >>I'm not sure where you live

    >
    >
    > I live in a culturally enlightened and relatively sophisticated
    > east-coast city of medium size.
    >
    > But it really couldn't matter less where either you or I happen to
    > live. Your point, that a tiny minority of Americans have no choice of
    > provider, doesn't have all that much relevance in general imo, given
    > the numbers involved. In this specific case it's moot altogether: the
    > OP stated quite plainly that there _was_ competition where he lived,
    > and that they had better (base) prices than Verizon.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>Moral of the whole story: markets vary

    >
    >
    > I think the moral of the story is that tiny markets have tiny clout
    > and little relevance.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    Living in a large and much more cultually enlightened (believe me, I
    come from the east coast- its not all that) western market, I think your
    philosophy sucks. The only thing that has little relevance is your
    attitude that only the high and mighty in big markets deserve some kind
    of choice. The post proved that ignorance is not determined by the size
    of the community one lives in.
  3. tristero

    tristero Guest

    In article <Wpjbb.1196$qK1.1266575@news2.news.adelphia.net>, Scott
    Stephenson wrote:
    > Living in a large and much more cultually enlightened (believe me, I
    > come from the east coast- its not all that) western market, I think your
    > philosophy sucks.


    That's a very articulate and enlightened criticism.

    What I described is not "my philosophy", it's the way market economies
    work, by design. Personally I'm not wild about cowboy capitalism, I
    think there are much healthier and more just ways to balance social
    and economic development. But talk about your irrelevant minority
    opinions...
  4. Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
    > Great marketing- I'll only give you a cheap plan if you want to leave.
    > Says a lot about taking care of those customers that don't want to
    > complain- suck them for every penny you can.


    Customer acquisition costs a lot of money. They have a right to expect to
    make it back - and you don't make money by giving away the service.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services
    22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
  5. Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

    > Living in a large and much more cultually enlightened (believe me, I
    > come from the east coast- its not all that) western market, I think your
    > philosophy sucks. The only thing that has little relevance is your
    > attitude that only the high and mighty in big markets deserve some kind
    > of choice. The post proved that ignorance is not determined by the size
    > of the community one lives in.


    I'm sure you think the providers are going to spend tons of money in areas
    where they won't be able to earn it back by having enough customers pay for
    the service.

    Unfortuantely, that's not the case.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services
    22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
  6. Steven J Sobol wrote:
    > Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Living in a large and much more cultually enlightened (believe me, I
    >>come from the east coast- its not all that) western market, I think your
    >>philosophy sucks. The only thing that has little relevance is your
    >>attitude that only the high and mighty in big markets deserve some kind
    >>of choice. The post proved that ignorance is not determined by the size
    >>of the community one lives in.

    >
    >
    > I'm sure you think the providers are going to spend tons of money in areas
    > where they won't be able to earn it back by having enough customers pay for
    > the service.
    >
    > Unfortuantely, that's not the case.
    >


    I don't think that at all. But the idea that those who choose to live
    in a more rural environment are less worthy is offensive (and that was
    the tone of the post I responded to).
  7. tristero wrote:
    > In article <Wpjbb.1196$qK1.1266575@news2.news.adelphia.net>, Scott
    > Stephenson wrote:
    >
    >>Living in a large and much more cultually enlightened (believe me, I
    >>come from the east coast- its not all that) western market, I think your
    >>philosophy sucks.

    >
    >
    > That's a very articulate and enlightened criticism.
    >
    > What I described is not "my philosophy", it's the way market economies
    > work, by design. Personally I'm not wild about cowboy capitalism, I
    > think there are much healthier and more just ways to balance social
    > and economic development. But talk about your irrelevant minority
    > opinions...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    Cowboy capitalism? Where did that come from? I happen to work for a
    Fortune 300 compnay, don't pay $2.00 a gallon for gas, and can go
    outside in a major metropolitan city and not have to look through the
    haze to see the mountains. I'll gladly stand with my 'minority
    opinion'- at least I have a real clue on how to not go through life
    accepting the drivel of your 'majority opnion' (at least it is in your mind.
  8. News Reader

    News Reader Guest

    Well, I wish we could take a little lesson and see how the minority
    doesn't matter. Let us take all the farms in small communities, and
    have them stop producing anything for two years. Since they don't
    matter, they won't have an effect on the U.S. economy, right. Now,
    let's take away all the wireless customers from those areas that don't
    matter much either. Now, the people in the big cities are left to pay
    for the unused networks with the poeple that don't matter. Because they
    don't matter, nobody misses them, right? Oh, wait, I forgot. You can't
    buy bread anymore because grain is not being grown. You can't buy
    flour, cereal, potatoes, lettuce, peas, beans, lentils, sugar (from
    sugar beet), or much of anything anymore. I usually don't rant like
    this, but living in Montana, I get sick of it. I cannot even get a
    cellular phone, nobody covers my area. I am sick of being pushed around
    like I don't matter. I'm not wild about coboy capitalism, either. It's
    not fair that grain prices steadily go down, but the price of bread
    doesn't. It's not fair that I farm almost every day of every year and
    lose money. It's not fair I have to drive my children 37 miles one-way
    to school. It's not fair that I have to pay 29.99/month for dialup
    internet. It's not fair that the wireless industry gets to go
    unregulated. Oh, yeah, I forgot, where do you think a lot of
    electricity comes from? Oh, yeah, that's right, a majority of North
    American electricity is produced in rural areas. From poeple that don't
    matter.

    tristero wrote:
    > In article <Wpjbb.1196$qK1.1266575@news2.news.adelphia.net>, Scott
    > Stephenson wrote:
    >
    >>Living in a large and much more cultually enlightened (believe me, I
    >>come from the east coast- its not all that) western market, I think your
    >>philosophy sucks.

    >
    >
    > That's a very articulate and enlightened criticism.
    >
    > What I described is not "my philosophy", it's the way market economies
    > work, by design. Personally I'm not wild about cowboy capitalism, I
    > think there are much healthier and more just ways to balance social
    > and economic development. But talk about your irrelevant minority
    > opinions...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  9. News Reader wrote:
    > Well, I wish we could take a little lesson and see how the minority
    > doesn't matter. Let us take all the farms in small communities, and
    > have them stop producing anything for two years. Since they don't
    > matter, they won't have an effect on the U.S. economy, right. Now,
    > let's take away all the wireless customers from those areas that don't
    > matter much either. Now, the people in the big cities are left to pay
    > for the unused networks with the poeple that don't matter. Because they
    > don't matter, nobody misses them, right? Oh, wait, I forgot. You can't
    > buy bread anymore because grain is not being grown. You can't buy
    > flour, cereal, potatoes, lettuce, peas, beans, lentils, sugar (from
    > sugar beet), or much of anything anymore. I usually don't rant like
    > this, but living in Montana, I get sick of it. I cannot even get a
    > cellular phone, nobody covers my area. I am sick of being pushed around
    > like I don't matter. I'm not wild about coboy capitalism, either. It's
    > not fair that grain prices steadily go down, but the price of bread
    > doesn't. It's not fair that I farm almost every day of every year and
    > lose money. It's not fair I have to drive my children 37 miles one-way
    > to school. It's not fair that I have to pay 29.99/month for dialup
    > internet. It's not fair that the wireless industry gets to go
    > unregulated. Oh, yeah, I forgot, where do you think a lot of
    > electricity comes from? Oh, yeah, that's right, a majority of North
    > American electricity is produced in rural areas. From poeple that don't
    > matter.
    >
    > tristero wrote:
    >
    >> In article <Wpjbb.1196$qK1.1266575@news2.news.adelphia.net>, Scott
    >> Stephenson wrote:
    >>
    >>> Living in a large and much more cultually enlightened (believe me, I
    >>> come from the east coast- its not all that) western market, I think
    >>> your philosophy sucks.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> That's a very articulate and enlightened criticism.
    >>
    >> What I described is not "my philosophy", it's the way market economies
    >> work, by design. Personally I'm not wild about cowboy capitalism, I
    >> think there are much healthier and more just ways to balance social
    >> and economic development. But talk about your irrelevant minority
    >> opinions...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >

    Thank you News Reader- very good points. I guess 'cowboy capitalism'
    offers quite a bit. But those on the east coast that live in a much
    more 'culturally enlightened' environment apparently know a lot more
    than those of us who live west of the Mississippi- we're just a bunch of
    cowboys.
  10. Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

    > Thank you News Reader- very good points. I guess 'cowboy capitalism'
    > offers quite a bit. But those on the east coast that live in a much
    > more 'culturally enlightened' environment apparently know a lot more
    > than those of us who live west of the Mississippi- we're just a bunch of
    > cowboys.


    Stupid question: If there are not enough customers in an area to justify
    the expense of building a cellular network, why would a company do so knowing
    they will lose money?

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services
    22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
  11. Steven J Sobol wrote:
    > Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Thank you News Reader- very good points. I guess 'cowboy capitalism'
    >>offers quite a bit. But those on the east coast that live in a much
    >>more 'culturally enlightened' environment apparently know a lot more
    >>than those of us who live west of the Mississippi- we're just a bunch of
    >>cowboys.

    >
    >
    > Stupid question: If there are not enough customers in an area to justify
    > the expense of building a cellular network, why would a company do so knowing
    > they will lose money?
    >

    Good question- I believe the OP said there was service available, just
    no plans under $40. Someone obviously found merit in expanding their
    network, and others are following suit. If I take the argument a step
    further, then are you saying that people in these markets should pay
    more because the provider built up in a network they knew wouldn't be
    profitable? And if so, I should get a $5 a month plan, because there
    are a crapload of people using the network where I am- its super-
    profitable for the company. Or should one balance out the other? I
    believe that is the argument given to the stockholders when rural
    markets gets service- that it will balance out in the end. Of course,
    Verizon can take your approach- what good is the network going to be
    when others come in and offer better service at lower prices?
  12. About Dakota

    About Dakota Guest

    Think of the potential of a wireless company that has the entire United
    States as home coverage. Oh, yeah, and to mention that their users will
    not roam on anybody else's system. This would have a great effect on
    choosing a wireless provider, as well as roaming agreements from other
    providers. It's a lot easier to have a roaming agreement with a single
    national company than it is with hundreds of smaller ones.

    AD

    Steven J Sobol wrote:
    > Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Thank you News Reader- very good points. I guess 'cowboy capitalism'
    >>offers quite a bit. But those on the east coast that live in a much
    >>more 'culturally enlightened' environment apparently know a lot more
    >>than those of us who live west of the Mississippi- we're just a bunch of
    >>cowboys.

    >
    >
    > Stupid question: If there are not enough customers in an area to justify
    > the expense of building a cellular network, why would a company do so knowing
    > they will lose money?
    >
  13. About Dakota

    About Dakota Guest

    Okay, I don't like to, but I do agree with you somewhat. But wait a
    minute, it's all those large providers that own the spectrum from the
    rural areas. They don't seem to care much for it, but they don't want
    to lose it.

    What's the deal with that?

    We can't even start up a local wireless company without spending upwards
    of billions of dollars to buy spectrum from the big ones.

    AD

    Steven J Sobol wrote:
    > Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Living in a large and much more cultually enlightened (believe me, I
    >>come from the east coast- its not all that) western market, I think your
    >>philosophy sucks. The only thing that has little relevance is your
    >>attitude that only the high and mighty in big markets deserve some kind
    >>of choice. The post proved that ignorance is not determined by the size
    >>of the community one lives in.

    >
    >
    > I'm sure you think the providers are going to spend tons of money in areas
    > where they won't be able to earn it back by having enough customers pay for
    > the service.
    >
    > Unfortuantely, that's not the case.
    >
  14. About Dakota

    About Dakota Guest

    That's my point (confirming with you) that the markets are not always
    the same. Between Grand Forks, North Dakota, and East Grand Forks,
    Minnesota, that one mile (across the Red River) can make a huge a
    difference.

    AD

    Group Special Mobile wrote:
    > On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:11:08 -0500, About Dakota
    > <aboutdakota@REMOVEMEhotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>You have to remember that not all markets are the same. In February of
    >>this year, many Verizon customers in North Dakota only had the option of
    >>1500 N/W minutes, on plans $29.99 and higher. At the same time, it was
    >>possible to go to Minnesota and get a phone with unlimited nights and
    >>weekends. Why the difference? Probably the cost to set up a network in
    >>North Dakota.

    >
    >
    > The more likely answer is marketing. The Minnesota market's probably
    > "hotter" than the ND market. All companies do it.
    >
    > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    > To send an email reply send to
    > GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com
  15. About Dakota

    About Dakota Guest

    Yeah, once Extend America comes online, it might change. Extend America
    is going to start at about the time WNP comes into effect. Maybe they
    might have some really good plans, allowing people to keep their old
    phone numbers. And since they'll have an up-to-date network, hopefully
    they won't have any of those "Regulatory and Administrative Surcharges"
    that other wireless companies have, sometimes going upwards of $7.50 per
    month (CellularONE in North Dakota). Not only will it give us a choice,
    but it will be a local company that knows what really goes on.

    Try having a Verizon phone driving through ND, SD, and MT. Verizon
    claims it's almost all digital. Too bad about 50% of calling area is
    still actually analog.

    I think that Verizon made its old analog towers to also have digital
    capability, but the distance an analog tower can transmit is greater
    than the distance that a digital tower can transmit. Not to mention
    that analog has fewer dropped calls.

    I hope that Extend America will have a large footprint in North Dakota,
    South Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, and Wyoming. If they can manage to
    cover most of those states, I think they'll gain pretty good market share.

    BTW, Scott, I take it you live in Montana, right? You seem to know
    rural life pretty well.

    AD

    Scott Stephenson wrote:
    > About Dakota wrote:
    >
    >> You have to remember that not all markets are the same. In February
    >> of this year, many Verizon customers in North Dakota only had the
    >> option of 1500 N/W minutes, on plans $29.99 and higher. At the same
    >> time, it was possible to go to Minnesota and get a phone with
    >> unlimited nights and weekends. Why the difference? Probably the cost
    >> to set up a network in North Dakota.
    >>
    >> About Dakota
    >>
    >>

    >
    > I'd just wait for Extend America to get their network up and running-
    > then you'll see if Verizon wants to offer competitive plans, because you
    > will have a choice at that point.
    >
  16. About Dakota wrote:
    > Yeah, once Extend America comes online, it might change. Extend America
    > is going to start at about the time WNP comes into effect. Maybe they
    > might have some really good plans, allowing people to keep their old
    > phone numbers. And since they'll have an up-to-date network, hopefully
    > they won't have any of those "Regulatory and Administrative Surcharges"
    > that other wireless companies have, sometimes going upwards of $7.50 per
    > month (CellularONE in North Dakota). Not only will it give us a choice,
    > but it will be a local company that knows what really goes on.
    >
    > Try having a Verizon phone driving through ND, SD, and MT. Verizon
    > claims it's almost all digital. Too bad about 50% of calling area is
    > still actually analog.
    >
    > I think that Verizon made its old analog towers to also have digital
    > capability, but the distance an analog tower can transmit is greater
    > than the distance that a digital tower can transmit. Not to mention
    > that analog has fewer dropped calls.
    >
    > I hope that Extend America will have a large footprint in North Dakota,
    > South Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, and Wyoming. If they can manage to
    > cover most of those states, I think they'll gain pretty good market share.
    >
    > BTW, Scott, I take it you live in Montana, right? You seem to know
    > rural life pretty well.
    >
    > AD
    >


    Nope- just south of Colorado Springs, but I grew up in rural New England
    and spend quite a bit of time in landscape that most city people only
    see in pictures. And before anybody assumes that I don't have a clue
    about metropolitan life, I've lived a good portion of my life in Boston,
    Indianapolis and Denver.

    From what I've read, you'll be real happy with Extend America once they
    have a chance to build out the network. Everything I've read makes me
    think that they are going to provide coverage and reliability that some
    of the major markets don't have. The one thing that hasn't been
    mentioned in any of the posts about rural coverage is how much cheaper
    it is to put up a tower than it was when all of the original networks
    were established. The same profit margin is now attainable with a
    smaller population. Extend America seems to have figured this out.
  17. Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

    > Good question- I believe the OP said there was service available, just
    > no plans under $40.


    That's correct, but there are two distinct subthreads active, that one
    and the rural coverage subthread.

    However, I could ask the same thing about the plans under $40.

    OK, let me offer an example. We pay Sprint PCS $35 per month for 300
    peak mintues, unlimited N&W, unlimited PCS to PCS, and we do indeed use
    about 250 of the 300 minutes each month, but that's coupled with another
    100 offpeak mintues and generally between 300 and 500 PCS to PCS minutes
    per month. We use MUCH more airtime than we pay for on that phone.

    I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I can't understand how
    Sprint can subsidize its customers like that and not lose a lot of money.

    That's my wife's phone; let me give you a Verizon example. I pay $60 per month
    plus another $20 for a second line on the America's Choice family share plan.
    I got the second line for business purposes but only ended up needing it for
    a month or two.

    This fall, Verizon's running a Family Share promotion where, for no
    additional cost and without a contract extension, I was able to get unlimited
    Verizon mobile-to-mobile. This is a big win for me, because now I can hand my
    wife my second phone and we can talk without it costing anything when she's
    out and about. It'll be an even bigger win if she gets the job she's looking
    at getting about 30 minutes from the house. But Verizon stands to lose a ton
    of money on the deal, and I'm someone who typically uses a lot of airtime,
    so we are talking about real money here.

    > Someone obviously found merit in expanding their
    > network, and others are following suit. If I take the argument a step
    > further, then are you saying that people in these markets should pay
    > more because the provider built up in a network they knew wouldn't be
    > profitable?


    No, I'm just saying that the decisions on plans and coverages are unlikely
    to be made without a fair amount of analysis on the part of the carrier, and
    they aren't going to do stuff that will cost them money.


    --
    JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services
    22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
  18. About Dakota <glaeske@removemeyifan.net> wrote:
    > Think of the potential of a wireless company that has the entire United
    > States as home coverage. Oh, yeah, and to mention that their users will
    > not roam on anybody else's system. This would have a great effect on
    > choosing a wireless provider


    It will never happen.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services
    22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
  19. About Dakota <glaeske@removemeyifan.net> wrote:
    > Okay, I don't like to, but I do agree with you somewhat. But wait a
    > minute, it's all those large providers that own the spectrum from the
    > rural areas. They don't seem to care much for it, but they don't want
    > to lose it.


    That's true in some cases, but not in all. I guess that to address your
    comment, I'd need some actual examples.

    Incidentally, I live in a large Verizon market - southern California.
    But I'm right on the fringe of coverage in a less-populated portion of
    Apple Valley. I can't pull a signal in some parts of my house.

    I am in the process of corresponding with the regional Executive Office
    to see if they can add coverage out here, but I may just end up getting
    an external antenna, as the one I need costs under $40.

    But right now I don't always have coverage in my own neighborhood, so believe
    me, I understand the issues you're talking about!

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services
    22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
  20. About Dakota <aboutdakota@removemehotmail.com> wrote:
    > Yeah, once Extend America comes online, it might change. Extend America
    > is going to start at about the time WNP comes into effect. Maybe they
    > might have some really good plans, allowing people to keep their old
    > phone numbers. And since they'll have an up-to-date network, hopefully
    > they won't have any of those "Regulatory and Administrative Surcharges"


    Regulatory Surcharges generally means "we're required by law to collect
    these fees and forward them to the FCC and/or other government agencies."

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services
    22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?