Away from Pay TV

[aja8888]

Last year we bought two used Motorola Droid smart phones on eBay for $60 each and signed on to a monthly agreement with PagePlus Cellular for $29.95 month for each phone. Service includes 1200 talk minutes, 3000 texts and 500 MB data. Goodbye to a $200/month Verizon contract!

This year when the kid's contracts are up, they are doing the same.

 

[Mulligan]

Last year we bought two used Motorola Droid smart phones on eBay for $60 each and signed on to a monthly agreement with PagePlus Cellular for $29.95 month for each phone. Service includes 1200 talk minutes, 3000 texts and 500 MB data. Goodbye to a $200/month Verizon contract!

This year when the kid's contracts are up, they are doing the same.

Sounds like that was a great plan. Was it hard to get them set up with your carrier? I just have the basic phone as I would never use the other features. I can use those on my iPad and slate tablet I have. I did go the Ziggy way and bought my GF a lower end smartphone last week, a Samsung Centura for $100. Reviewers said if you never have had a smartphone you will love it. Well she fit that bill and they were right. I saved hundreds for her little surprise gift. For all she knows it is an IPhone 10, compared to what she previously had.

 

[ziggy29]

Reviewers said if you never have had a smartphone you will love it. Well she fit that bill and they were right.

And if you don't use data -- if you only connect with wifi -- smartphone plans can be very cheap, too.

 

[aja8888]

Sounds like that was a great plan. Was it hard to get them set up with your carrier?

No, for PagePlus, they use the Verizon network and all you need is a phone that was previously on a Verizon contract (not prepaid). If the phone has a "clean ESN" (off contract and not black listed for non-payment), you can activate the phone online with PagePlus or just call them for activation. It's very simple and painless, but requires a CDMA phone. Here is a link to their website:

https://www.pagepluscellular.com/

You can also buy a new phone from PagePlus's limited selection of offerings.

For AT&T product phones (GSM), people are using Straight Talk from Walmart as a monthly service similar to PagPlus.

Here's the difference between the two services:

StraightTalk vs Page Plus Cellular

 

[ziggy29]

For AT&T product phones (GSM), people are using Straight Talk from Walmart as a monthly service similar to PagPlus.

For the more or less "unlimited" plans (with limits, LOL), Net10 also is in that space for AT&T, and both are $45 per month (Net10 requires autopay for that, or else it's $50). AT&T is more miserly on its data with its partner MVNOs than T-Mobile where plans with ST and Net10 (among others), so there are nuances. Straight Talk can "throttle" you on data without warning when you've hit some unpublished thresholds (most say about 2 GB in a month or more than 100 MB a day), and Net10 recently announced a 1.5 GB monthly cap if you are on AT&T's GSM network (but not applicable if you are using a phone using T-Mo's network).

I actually would prefer Net10's policy if I needed that much of a plan, since there is no arbitrary and unknown cutoff point. But in reality, the $10 monthly plan with H2O is more than enough for me, using maybe 30 minutes of calling and 50 texts a month. I could use data at 30 cents per MB with that plan, but I don't use data unless it's wifi (or maybe in an emergency if I needed data in the middle of nowhere). And the good thing about this plan is that what I don't use rolls over if I refresh before expiration, so if I need 3G data I'll have "banked" enough in reserve to do so.

 

[Calico]

You evidently do forgot sometimes, as I am not "demonstrating" any "hate rhetoric" at all. It is understandable though. If I was busy wearing out the pages of my thesaurus trying to find a $5 word when a nickel word would suffice just fine, I would forget the main purpose of the the other posters comment was too. I simply was explaining why consumers feel the way they do, and no amount of contracts or apples to apples comparison is going to change that.

Truth! You took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[aja8888]

PagePlus has the pay as you go plans also from $10 to $80. The plans are good for 120 days except the $80 one which gives you 2000 minutes for $80 for a year. That's $0.04 minute and is a popular plan for just talk.

I had the 12 plan for a while (250/250/10MB) for $12/month. When I quit work, I'm going back to it as I don't care about data.

Seems like there are more and more of these plans and services popping up, which is a good thing.

 

[ziggy29]

I had the 12 plan for a while (250/250/10MB) for $12/month. When I quit work, I'm going back to it as I don't care about data.

And even if you sometimes used data, if you had a low-end smartphone that could use wifi, you'd still be fine.

Seems like there are more and more of these plans and services popping up, which is a good thing.

No doubt. This market is one where we are clearly seeing business models adapting to consumer demand and desire. It doesn't always happen for various reasons, but *this* market is surely adapting to what the people are asking for. We don't all spend enough time tethered to our phones to justify spending $50-$100 per month. And to get back to the thread's topic, the pay TV industry has had a lot more time to mature than the cell phone industry, but they can't pull off the same kind of wide variety of options to service a wide variety of consumer needs. Some of that is systemic industry-specific, but some of it is just that they can't (or won't) adapt their business model.

 

[aja8888]

The interesting thing with these TV channel packages that they tout as "so many choices" is that you really get a handful or real content channels and 250+ others, many of which are repeated. I think our Uverse package has 300 channels and I probably actually watch 5 or so. The subscribed movie channel extra like HBO must be on the way out with the advent of Netflix.

 

[ziggy29]

The interesting thing with these TV channel packages that they tout as "so many choices" is that you really get a handful or real content channels and 250+ others, many of which are repeated. I think our Uverse package has 300 channels and I probably actually watch 5 or so. The subscribed movie channel extra like HBO must be on the way out with the advent of Netflix.

A lot of people complain about the prices and say, "let me OUT of these religious and home shopping channels!" Not realizing that these "objectionable" (to them) channels actually PAY to be carried and thus subsidize the rest of their programming.

 

[BLS53]

That describes my feelings pretty well. It's a pita to change phone, internet and TV providers, but that's what you have to do to get the best deals. It would be so much nicer if longevity and loyalty on the part of the customer yielded the best deals, but clearly not so. It means constantly staying on top of what contractual period you're in the midst of and which providers will provide the best "newbie" deals when you switch.

In terms of competition, I find that towns that give an exclusive distributorship to a cable company are doing their residents a disservice. In suburban Chicago, some smart towns have two active cable companies. Around here, those are commonly Comcast and WOW. I'm familiar with three cases that have that situation and in all three prices are lower and offerings more generous than we have in our "Comcast monopoly" town.

It's disgusting doing business with Comcast. I've let the town fathers hear that on numerous occasions.

Comcast went downhill when they centralized all their customer service in a few locations. It's probably different in the Chicago area, but in a small town, Comcast used to have a couple of girls in an office and maybe a dozen guys roaming the streets. A customer could get things done with a local office visit, or maybe even hailing a truck down in the neighborhood. Now they have one toll free number, 300 miles away, with $9 an hour CSR's that are as dumb as the day is long. They are the gatekeepers to getting anything done with your cable or internet. Still have a local office you can swap boxes out at, but all service calls are directed to the distant call center.

 

[BLS53]

I have Dish at home and Fairpoint cable at work. They both keep me supplied with many wasted channels, and few I actually watch. For me a must watch is FSU men's basketball. When we are playing Duke or UNC, it will always be on a major network. But when the GT's and WF's roll around, you will be searching. ESPN3 ends up with many of those games, and Homey don't play that. There is always a link to a free streaming site on the game thread, and I clicked it one time. I spend two days cleaning all the malware of my work laptop, then found out it had got my home PC and laptop too, because I use Chrome. Well after that, I listened to a lot of games on the radio.

If prices keep escalating to watch sports on TV, there's going to be a lot of people listening to games on the radio. As soon as baseball season is over, I'm shutting off cable until next spring. Partly due to cost, and partly because the programming has become so bad.

 

[Arifriekinel]

Comcast went downhill when they centralized all their customer service in a few locations. It's probably different in the Chicago area, but in a small town, Comcast used to have a couple of girls in an office and maybe a dozen guys roaming the streets. A customer could get things done with a local office visit, or maybe even hailing a truck down in the neighborhood. Now they have one toll free number, 300 miles away, with $9 an hour CSR's that are as dumb as the day is long. They are the gatekeepers to getting anything done with your cable or internet. Still have a local office you can swap boxes out at, but all service calls are directed to the distant call center.

When I was working for the company they outsource through, I didn't know anyone working in a call center. I think they still had some, but at least for us, we were all at home, spread throughout the states, and my boss would always scold me a bit if she was listening to our calls and she heard me tell them where I lived I guess it's a big no-no for some reason.

 

[bUU]

I don't think it is bias.

That's often part of the nature of bias.

You are probably too young to remember Lilly Tomlin's telephone operator character's line (from the days before the Bell break-up) "Sir, we are the telephone company. We don't care. We don't have to."

I not only remember Tomlin's sketch, but I worked for the "telephone company" while we were regulated, with profits being a function of expenses. The history you're outlining helps explain the genesis of that specific set of biases.

One large company with generally outstanding customer service is Apple. Will success spoil them?

What Apple sells is the experience. You can get everything you can get from Apple from lesser sellers, if you're willing to be treated worse.

You evidently do forgot sometimes, as I am not "demonstrating" any "hate rhetoric" at all. It is understandable though. If I was busy wearing out the pages of my thesaurus trying to find a $5 word when a nickel word would suffice just fine, I would forget the main purpose of the the other posters comment was too.

I've evidently touched a nerve. I'm sorry that you got upset.

Regardless, if consumers sincerely felt the way you imply, they'd have government do something about it. As it is, inert and impotent, it's just hot air.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

We use T-Mobile Pay as you go. We get data via wifi when we can and honestly it costs about $100 per year. Why do we need permanent data? That is what we asked ourselves. NAV in the car, Email when we connect. It is OK.

Cable is another thing, we Love and use Comcast on demand all the time. They have even started disabling FF to force the commercials on you on there too. (HATE Commercials) We have NO USE for a DVR, our life is not that Jam Packed.

It is expensive, we pay over $170pm for cable and internet. But what other choice is there? We cannot get ANY other internet where we live. We like HBO, Starz etc.

Overall it is relatively economical entertainment compared with going out all the time. We also have a media center that plays anything so it works out well. I get tons of content from the web at little to no cost.

Would we like it cheaper? Yes, but honestly there are a lot more things to worry about that saving $50 PM on cable & internet for inferior service. We would have Direct TV for TV if they has On Demand but then it would cost the same or more.

 

[Chuckanut]

A new TV alternative is the $35 ChromeCast device from Google. With it you can display web pages on your TV. However, there are some problems and limitations with it including reports of the video and audio being 'out of sync' which can be very annoying. Still for $35, if you have internet service and wifi already, it might be worth a shot.

 

[ERD50]

For those who may not know - if you have that T-Mobile 'Gold Status' pre-pay plan, you can also get data very cheaply if you only need it on occasion. With the Gold plan, once you have added $100, you can 'top off' for just $10, which extends the period for a year, and minutes roll over. It is great for DW and me, as we only use 5-10 minutes a month. I've got several years of minutes 'banked', unless my usage changes. So I now pay ~ 83 cents per month for each.

So DW wanted a 'smart phone', so I got a $200 Samsung at Walmart (T679 Exhibit). Just moved the SIM from her old dumb phone (which I keep as a back up) into the samsung. She uses all the 'smart' features while on wifi at home, so no extra costs, and she's happy (so I'm happy!) Now, if we need data away from wifi, like we are travelling, we can pay for it by the day. Just $2/day for unlimited text/talk, and slow data, or $3/day for unlimited on all (check those, I may have them mixed up a little - but close). So for occasional use, this is very cheap. And you can turn it on/off from your phone, and go right back to Gold status rates w/o any problem. You just need to have those dollars in your account.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
I don't think it is bias.

That's often part of the nature of bias.

Well that is a convenient, universal reply to claims of bias!

It reminds me of those statements that denial is the first sign of a problem. Doesn't really allow for an out, does it? Or "Is this the first time you beat your wife?".

-ERD50

 

[Walt34]

I have little doubt that all the Comcast-bashing is true. DW's nephew works for Comcast (hey, go easy on the guy - jobs are hard to find!) and the stories he tells! He started as a line tech but since it quickly became apparent he has more sense than a box of rocks and showed up on time for work he's now a regional manager.

But the stories are sort of like the best of Dear Abby and Dilbert combined.

 

[BLS53]

When I was working for the company they outsource through, I didn't know anyone working in a call center. I think they still had some, but at least for us, we were all at home, spread throughout the states, and my boss would always scold me a bit if she was listening to our calls and she heard me tell them where I lived I guess it's a big no-no for some reason.

Maybe they are spread out geographically, working from home, I don't know. I've been told that for my location, Paducah KY, that the call center is in Huntsville AL. Or maybe just the person I dealt with was in Huntsville. At any rate, it's difficult getting anything done.

 

[bUU]

Well that is a convenient, universal reply to claims of bias!

Why do you find that notable? Are you surprised that there is a consumer tilt to an issue that affects consumers? The reality is that we've made our own beds. Blaming others is just noise. Given that you're serious about the concerns you've expressed, could you please express your concerns in operational terms, i.e., what you would have people here do, or what you would have government do, to make these companies you don't like operate differently? Thanks.

 

[ERD50]

Why do you find that notable? Are you surprised that there is a consumer tilt to an issue that affects consumers?

I explained that with my analogies. You counter my claim that it is not bias, by saying that is how bias works. It's circular. So I can't possibly have any claim that it's not bias, you cans shoot it down with that too-simple 'is-too-is-not -argument'.

The reality is that we've made our own beds. Blaming others is just noise. Given that you're serious about the concerns you've expressed, could you please express your concerns in operational terms, i.e., what you would have people here do, or what you would have government do, to make these companies you don't like operate differently? Thanks.

I alluded to it, I'll give you specifics. The problem as I see it is monopoly/oligopoly status of these industries. What I want govt to do is restore competition in these areas, and then get out of the way and let the free market work. IMO, that would be far better than trying to micro-manage oligopolies with regs that they will work around faster than a govt can write them.

One example I gave in another thread - when they install cable in a neighborhood, install multiple lines and allow multiple companies to compete. The cost of a few more lines of co-ax is minimal compared to the cost of digging up and repairing roads to install one line. I use a point-to-point wireless for my internet - that should be offered as competition to cable in more places, but cable gets a monopoly advantage in most places.

One small step in mobile phones - break the connection between phones and carriers. None of this bundling of 2 year contracts to get a phone that locks you in with ETFs. Make it all ala-cart and month-by-month. Buy/rent/lease a phone, select a carrier - switch carriers on any month if they don't treat you right. Europe got wise and mandated standard chargers for cell phones (USB port charging). While this was done for enviro reasons (fewer scrapped chargers, you can reuse your old one on a new phone), it also cut down some 'inertia' for people to stick with the same phone supplier, making the market a bit more free.

Stuff like that.

-ERD50

 

[bUU]

So I can't possibly have any claim that it's not bias

Sure you can... just present objective information showing that the companies routinely violate agreements they entered into. If there is such proof. Otherwise, then just accept that the criticisms are indeed consumer bias: Consumers wanting something that they aren't willing to pay the premium necessary to motivate business to provide them.

I alluded to it, I'll give you specifics. The problem as I see it is monopoly/oligopoly status of these industries.

For some of them, that's the nature of the beast. The cost of stringing coax or fiber to everyone's home, for example, makes cable television and broadband something that either the public has to pay for itself (read: taxes) or subject itself to the ramifications of leaving that remarkably high cost up to those who choose to enter the marketplace (read: accepting the impact of regulation, or accepting the impact of oligopoly). I think the problem with what you're trying to defend is that it is aiming for that consumer's free lunch (not the the whole service would be free, but rather those aspects your complaining about would be remedied without consumers paying the premium for getting what they want), and that's just not reasonable.

What I want govt to do is restore competition in these areas, and then get out of the way and let the free market work.

"Restoring competition" is not free market. So basically what I see you saying here is you want your cake and to eat it too. You literally cannot have it both ways.

IMO, that would be far better than trying to micro-manage oligopolies with regs that they will work around faster than a govt can write them.

Again, the only practicable choices are the state paying for and owning the infrastructure, or private entities doing so. If the latter (which seems to be your choice), then the only practicable choices are to either heavily regulate the suppliers or lightly regulate the suppliers. If the latter (which seems to be your choices), then that means letting them structure their service so that they earn money as much as the market will bear, or regulating them and suffering the consequences of regulation, including loss of motivation to innovate, etc.

Side-question: Have you ever served on your municipality's cable contract oversight committee?

One example I gave in another thread - when they install cable in a neighborhood, install multiple lines and allow multiple companies to compete.

What will you do to make that worth their effort? You cannot just order them to do it without it being regulation. Even with regulation, it'll have to be worthwhile for them (in other words, the pricing that you let them charge will have to justify the extra expense), or they will simply not serve that town (see recent news articles on deployment of rural broadband service).

Then talk about: Who's going to maintain those lines? How are you going to force them to without regulation? How are you going to force them to provide service quality to their competitors on par with the service they perform for themselves without regulation? And so on.

I'm all for your ideas. But call things what they are: Regulation.

I use a point-to-point wireless for my internet - that should be offered as competition to cable in more places, but cable gets a monopoly advantage in most places.

What are you willing to pay to motivate other suppliers to make the investments necessary and the work necessary to secure the necessary licenses to operate?

One small step in mobile phones - break the connection between phones and carriers.

Regulation.

None of this bundling of 2 year contracts to get a phone that locks you in with ETFs.

Regulation.

Make it all ala-cart and month-by-month.

Regulation.

Europe got wise and mandated standard chargers for cell phones

Regulation.

... making the market a bit more free.

Incorrect. ... making the market a bit less free. More regulated. Regulated in the consumers' favor. To placate consumer bias.

Again, I'm not opposed. Just call it what it actually is.

 

[ERD50]

"Restoring competition" is not free market. So basically what I see you saying here is you want your cake and to eat it too. You literally cannot have it both ways.

I'm all for your ideas. But call things what they are: Regulation.

Regulation.

Again, I'm not opposed. Just call it what it actually is.

I was going to reply to your other comments, but these straw man arguments are tiring.

I never said that I believe in some pure, black-white, wild-west, Somali-pirate version of 'free markets'. I'm pragmatic. I can accept that there are shades of gray (or has that phrase been co-opted?). I accept that sometimes, some regulations are needed to create a free-er market. I don't have a problem with some regulations. Even though I have a strong libertarian bent, I'll go so far as to say that in many areas, we don't have enough regulation (and are over-regulated in many other areas).

But in short form - I believe there are reasonable ways to implement each of my suggestions, and there are plenty of precedents that have worked just fine for all involved. But I'm not going to expend the effort detailing them when your replies are just straw-man take downs.

-ERD50

 

[bUU]

I'm sorry you're dismissing what I've said out of hand because you're unwilling to take comments seriously that undercut the rhetoric you were using, but if you want to just drop it then we can.