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. My Corporate Verizon Wireless Email says so.

    Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in article
    <UKibb.1186$qK1.1258010@news2.news.adelphia.net>:
    > David Domanski wrote:
    > > Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in article
    > > <H68bb.1100$qK1.1122381@news2.news.adelphia.net>:
    > >
    > >>DigDah . wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>Is this wrong. Isn't a business in business to make money? The
    > >>>difference here is around 10 dollars with other companies or should I
    > >>>say approx 33 cents a day. ARPU (average revenue per user)....the
    > >>>higher the better for VZW.
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>Then explain how the company with the highest ARPU (Nextel) can offer a
    > >>$20 plan and three at $35.99. They are all listed on their website, and
    > >>not "super top secret for those customers wanting to leave" plans.
    > >>

    > >
    > >
    > > Verizon Offers 4 plans that are below $40 per month. Why bother widely
    > > promoting low use plans when the average cust. utilizes plans at or
    > > above $40 per month? just doesn't make sense.
    > >
    > > Verizon's Marketing Department is obviously done and is still doing a
    > > great job considering Verizon added 1.4 million cust. through the last
    > > quarter alone.
    > >
    > > [posted via phonescoop.com]

    > 1.4 million? What is your source for this number- third quarter won't
    > be announced for another month.
    >




    [posted via phonescoop.com]



    › See More: Why no sub-$40 plans
  2. David Domanski wrote:
    > My Corporate Verizon Wireless Email says so.
    >
    > Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in article
    > <UKibb.1186$qK1.1258010@news2.news.adelphia.net>:
    >
    >>David Domanski wrote:
    >>
    >>>Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in article
    >>><H68bb.1100$qK1.1122381@news2.news.adelphia.net>:


    >>1.4 million? What is your source for this number- third quarter won't
    >>be announced for another month.
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com]


    In the habit of sharing insider information? Or has Verizon designated
    you as their press spokesman? You better read the fine print in the
    Insider Information agreement they made you sign when they hired you-
    big no-no, and the company does have people they actually pay to monitor
    sites such as this. Usually, just to see what their customers are
    saying, but they also look for stuff like this.
  3. David Domanski wrote:
    > "Verizon Wireless posted the strongest results of any carrier so far
    > this quarter, reporting nearly 1.3 million subscriber additions and
    > further distancing itself from its nationwide competitors as the largest
    > carrier in the country. "
    >
    > https://www.shopatwireless.com/store/Daily_News/Articles/Sprint_VZW_Cheer_2ndQ_08_04_03.htm
    >
    > Thats the best link i can directly give you.
    >
    > Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in article
    > <UKibb.1186$qK1.1258010@news2.news.adelphia.net>:
    >
    >>>[posted via phonescoop.com]

    >>
    >>1.4 million? What is your source for this number- third quarter won't
    >>be announced for another month.
    >>

    >
    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com]

    You know what? I owe you an apology- I misread and thought you were
    talking about the current quarter- my bad.
  4. Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

    >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.


    Sprint is absolutely not subsidizing anyone. What you and many people do not
    understand is that there is very little marginal cost to the cell phone
    companies for carrying a call. They have a huge capital investment going that is
    still there if you make 1 call a month or 1000 calls a month.

    What Sprint & company are trying to do is segment the market by how much you are
    willing to pay per month. They attempt to do this by limiting number of minutes
    in a "plan" as they haven't come up with a better way at this point in time.
  5. Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

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


    Government fees & taxes have *always* been a part of business. What cellcos are
    trying to do is maintain the illusion of a price point while raising rates in a
    way that sounds acceptable.

    And in fact, many of these so called government fees do not go to the government
    at all. Consider the local number portability fee, universal service fee, etc...
    All go to the carrier
  6. Well then its a good thing that the numbers i quoted to you are for the
    Second Quarter numbers NOT Third quarter and also have already been well
    publicized. You really think I'd share preliminary Third quarter
    earnings?

    Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in article
    <6lpbb.1266$qK1.1329858@news2.news.adelphia.net>:
    >> In the habit of sharing insider information? Or has Verizon designated

    > you as their press spokesman? You better read the fine print in the
    > Insider Information agreement they made you sign when they hired you-
    > big no-no, and the company does have people they actually pay to monitor
    > sites such as this. Usually, just to see what their customers are
    > saying, but they also look for stuff like this.
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  7. David Domanski wrote:
    > Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in article
    > <H68bb.1100$qK1.1122381@news2.news.adelphia.net>:
    >
    >>DigDah . wrote:
    >>
    >>>Is this wrong. Isn't a business in business to make money? The
    >>>difference here is around 10 dollars with other companies or should I
    >>>say approx 33 cents a day. ARPU (average revenue per user)....the
    >>>higher the better for VZW.
    >>>

    >>
    >>Then explain how the company with the highest ARPU (Nextel) can offer a
    >>$20 plan and three at $35.99. They are all listed on their website, and
    >>not "super top secret for those customers wanting to leave" plans.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Verizon Offers 4 plans that are below $40 per month. Why bother widely
    > promoting low use plans when the average cust. utilizes plans at or
    > above $40 per month? just doesn't make sense.
    >
    > Verizon's Marketing Department is obviously done and is still doing a
    > great job considering Verizon added 1.4 million cust. through the last
    > quarter alone.
    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com]

    Then I guess Nextel, with 600,000 adds last quarter, would be right in
    line with this number (although I believe the link you provided said 1.3
    million adds for the year-to-date through the second quarter).
  8. About Dakota

    About Dakota Guest

    But one thing if you understand -- can you switch to another wireless
    provider. If you can, you don't quite understand. Take a look at
    Northwest North Dakota and Eastern Montana. If you can find a provider
    that provides celluler services here, please, let me know, because I
    live there and I can't find one. We have started up a group called
    Montana/Dakota Wireless. Our whole intention is getting a wireless
    company (not to compete with a larger one or anything) to give us
    service, such as a way to phone for help after a car accident. We are
    not densely populated, so it's unlikely anybody else would stumble upon
    the scene for a while.

    While our intentions are good (at least for us), we have contacted the
    FCC about the appropriate actions. The only problem is, there are no
    spectrum licenses available for our area. In order to go ahead, we
    would have buy spectrum from an existing wireless provider, or subsidize
    (or pay in full) the cost for a new provider to set up network here.
    Either of those two ways, we pay several hundred million dollars, or
    even close to a billion or two for spectrum, or we build something for
    some other company, and we have no control after launch.

    One possibility, with spectrum licenses from the 1997 FCC auctions, PCS
    licenses, we may be able to acquire spectrum by late 2006 or early 2007.
    The FCC will probably be revoking some spectrum licenses for companies
    that have not done anything toward building up networks. If we do
    acquire those licenses, we may able to have service up by 2009 or 2010.

    AD

    Steven J Sobol wrote:
    > 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!
    >
  9. About Dakota

    About Dakota Guest

    Read a little bit more carefully:

    In a mailing insert from CellularOne (West):

    "The Regulatory and Administration Surcharge is neither a tax, nor madated"

    Those fees are used to upgrade the network to FCC standards. That
    income is used solely for the wireless carrier. You should have
    something similar on your bill, call your wireless company and inquire
    about it. You might be surprised.

    AD

    Steven J Sobol wrote:
    > 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."
    >
  10. Hopper

    Hopper Guest

    "News Reader" <newsreader@spam.me.plz.cuz.i.hate.that.com> wrote in message
    news:3F6DF2F6.3020207@spam.me.plz.cuz.i.hate.that.com...
    > 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.


    Agriculture is only two percent of the GDP. The war in Iraq amounts to 5.25%
    of the GSP using current figures from the Bush Administration.

    > 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.


    Here's a paraphrase from the Canadian Minister of Agriculture, Lyle
    Vanclief, who I saw speak two years ago: The province of Manitoba alone can
    produce enough food to feed four *billion* people.

    Distribution is the issue, not production. That's why price supports exist
    for some crops.
  11. Male Bomb

    Male Bomb Guest


    > 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).


    There are trade offs of city life vs. rural life, I could have twice the
    house for half the money an hour from here in the country. Also I
    would have no city income tax(4%), no township tax and MUCH cheaper
    property tax and automobile insurance. But I would have to dine at the
    greasy spoon for dinner and a movie would be the only form of
    entertainment. You chose to live where you want. and if the services
    you need are not there maybe you should think about relocating. MB

    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  12. Clay

    Clay Guest

    Its only $.97 for CellularONE not $7.50 like you claim.


    "About Dakota" <glaeske@REMOVEMEyifan.net> wrote in message
    news:3F6E3CA3.3060609@REMOVEMEyifan.net...
    > Read a little bit more carefully:
    >
    > In a mailing insert from CellularOne (West):
    >
    > "The Regulatory and Administration Surcharge is neither a tax, nor

    madated"
    >
    > Those fees are used to upgrade the network to FCC standards. That
    > income is used solely for the wireless carrier. You should have
    > something similar on your bill, call your wireless company and inquire
    > about it. You might be surprised.
    >
    > AD
    >
    > Steven J Sobol wrote:
    > > 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."
    > >

    >
  13. About Dakota

    About Dakota Guest

    The "Regulatory and Administrative Surcharge" is 0.97. There is also TW
    Administrative Fee of 5.00, so far equalling 5.97, next comes the S/F
    Excise of 1.47 (it's called something like that, I don't have that
    charge with Cingular). 5.97 + 1.47 = 7.44, plus sales taxes. I think
    that's pretty close to 7.50 per month. In any case, I don't use
    CellularONE anymore, so it doesn't really matter.

    AD

    Clay wrote:
    > Its only $.97 for CellularONE not $7.50 like you claim.
    >
    >
    > "About Dakota" <glaeske@REMOVEMEyifan.net> wrote in message
    > news:3F6E3CA3.3060609@REMOVEMEyifan.net...
    >
    >>Read a little bit more carefully:
    >>
    >>In a mailing insert from CellularOne (West):
    >>
    >>"The Regulatory and Administration Surcharge is neither a tax, nor

    >
    > madated"
    >
    >>Those fees are used to upgrade the network to FCC standards. That
    >>income is used solely for the wireless carrier. You should have
    >>something similar on your bill, call your wireless company and inquire
    >>about it. You might be surprised.
    >>
    >>AD
    >>
    >>Steven J Sobol wrote:
    >>
    >>>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."
    >
    >
    >
  14. XFF

    XFF Guest

    Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:<UKibb.1186$qK1.1258010@news2.news.adelphia.net>...

    > 1.4 million? What is your source for this number- third quarter won't
    > be announced for another month.


    It's actually 1.295 M additions from end of Q1 to end of Q2. Here's
    the complete list (set reader to fixed-width font to view correctly):

    wireless carriers 03/03 06/03
    ================= --------------
    1. Verizon Wireless VZ/VOD 33.324 34.619
    2. Cingular Wireless BLS/SBC 22.114 22.640
    3. AT&T Wireless Services AWE 21.142 21.493
    4. Sprint PCS PCS 18.243 18.8 M
    direct 14.959 15.29M
    resale .590
    affiliate 2.694
    5. Nextel Communications NXTL/NXTP 11.092 11.683
    6. T-Mobile DT 10.837 11.443
    7. ALLTEL AT 7.761 7.872
    8. U.S. Cellular USM 4.240 4.343
    9. Dobson Cellular Systems DCEL 1.411 1.565
    Dobson Communications 718.9k 867.6k
    American Cellular 692.1k 697.5k
    10.Western Wireless WWCA 1.216 1.231
    11.Rural Cellular Corporation RCCC 728.7k 739.0k
    12.Centennial Wireless CYCL 538.9k 540.9k
  15. XFF

    XFF Guest

    About Dakota <aboutdakota@REMOVEMEhotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3F6E3A78.9010808@REMOVEMEhotmail.com>...

    > While our intentions are good (at least for us), we have contacted the
    > FCC about the appropriate actions. The only problem is, there are no
    > spectrum licenses available for our area. In order to go ahead, we
    > would have buy spectrum from an existing wireless provider, or subsidize
    > (or pay in full) the cost for a new provider to set up network here.
    > Either of those two ways, we pay several hundred million dollars, or
    > even close to a billion or two for spectrum, or we build something for
    > some other company, and we have no control after launch.


    Have you explored the unserved area clause? Basically, if a cellular
    license holder has not built out their licensed area within 5 years
    after grant of the license, any other company can petition to serve
    that area. I assume that WWCA holds the A-side license and VZW holds
    the B-side license for your area (it would help to know which market
    or which county you're in). Now according to you, there is no
    cellular service available in your area whatsoever. If that is so,
    and the five year buildout period has expired, your co-op could
    legally petition the FCC to provide service in this area. You would
    even have a choice of A- or B-band :) Several companies have persued
    this business model with no spectrum holdings of the own, most notably
    Commnet Wireless, but also companies like Suburban Cellular, NECCI,
    and Blanca Telephone.

    Keep in mind though that even though there would be no license auction
    involved, the capital costs of setting up a wireless network are still
    staggering and if the user base is not there you will probably not be
    able to recover costs. That's the reason the original license holder
    isn't building out your area in the first place.
  16. SlobbyDon

    SlobbyDon Guest

    NeoTrinity wrote:
    > Here in southern AZ (85701), Verizon does not offer a local or
    > national plan for less then $39.95. =20
    >=20
    > It would be nice to have Verizon's coverage on a plan where I would
    > get about 200 to 250 minutes for abut $30.
    >=20

    I have a Tucson phone that I want to hang onto as long as possible. =
    It's a grandfathered Single Rate West plan for $35 with 300 peak =
    minutes. I've looked at many newer plans under $39.95. None would save =
    me money with the usage I have now.
  17. Bill Radio

    Bill Radio Guest

    Most agents don't know about the $34.99 AC plan: 300 Minutes,
    w/Unlimited N&W, 9pm, no MtoM. Most CS agents say there's no such plan
    until you give them the Code number, NA1C. Then they put you on hold
    trying to figure out what went wrong.

    -Bill Radio

    Western U.S. Wireless Reviews & Ratings:
    http://www.MountainWireless.com


    > NeoTrinity wrote:
    > > Here in southern AZ (85701), Verizon does not offer a local or
    > > national plan for less then $39.95.



    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  18. SlobbyDon

    SlobbyDon Guest

    About Dakota wrote:
    > 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.
    >=20
    > AD


    And I'm sure in that area, many ND residents have MN phones. There are =
    other border cities that are problematic like Yuma, AZ. California =
    local plans don't cover AZ, but AZ local plans cover Southern =
    California. People in Yuma's California suburbs would have to cheat it =
    seems to get an adequate local plan.
  19. VZW Guy

    VZW Guy Guest

    Most carrier dont like plans below $40 becuase they dont really make
    anything from you, they basically just break even. so there is really
    hardly a push for sub $40 plans.

    --
    Statements made by me are of my opinion and knowledge, and do not
    express those by Verizon Wireless(R).
    Any information I give is subject to change without notice, and may not
    be completely accurate.


    "NeoTrinity" <neotrinity@bigfoot.com> wrote in article
    <A13bb.320$gR1.197@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
    > Here in southern AZ (85701), Verizon does not offer a local or national plan
    > for less then $39.95. All the other providers in the area offer $20 and $30
    > plans. Why not Verizon?
    >
    > It would be nice to have Verizon's coverage on a plan where I would get
    > about 200 to 250 minutes for abut $30.
    >
    > -neotrinity
    >
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  20. Ray Dios

    Ray Dios Guest

    Because you get what you pay for.
    You either want the best or pay less.
    Low monthly rates are like a baited hook!

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?