iPhone 3G Actually $160 More Expensive

On 13-Jun-2008, at 08:11, Michael Villebeck wrote:
> Isn't it so that in the USA the cell phone owner is charged for
> incoming calls? In Europe (at least in the countries I know of) it's
> the caller who pays a premium for calling a cell phone, the cell phone
> owner isn't charged anything for the incoming calls.

Yes. Not only that, but in the US you are charged for Spam SMS
messages, which are becoming more and more of a problem. You have no
recourse, so my Father In Laws phone gets an extra $1 or 2 every
single month for the spam SMS he receives. He doesn't use SMS
messages at all, and every one of them confuses him. I suppose I
could call t-mobile every single month for him, but my time is worth
more than that...

So, if you're planning on getting a iPhone without SMS, be aware of
that little tidbit: you will get charged some absurd amount for
incoming SMS messages ($0.30 each I believe).

On 14-Jun-2008, at 02:23, karl puder wrote:
> Ah, but what happens if my friend with an existing iPhone buys an
> iPhone 3G and I buy his old iPhone from him and sign up with AT&T?
> Can I get the "old" plan, or will I be paying the new higher price
> for service on an iPhone 1.0? Somehow, I don't think I will be given
> that choice.

No one knows for sure, but my guess is that Cingulatt will not offer
the old iPhone plan past 10 July.

On 6/13/08 6:28 AM, "Lewis O'Neil" <lewisoneilgmail.com> wrote:

> Regarding your post "iPhone 3G Actually $160 More Expensive".
> According to Jason O'Grady at ZDNet 200 SMS will be included in new
> iPhone *voice* plans. I've looked on AT&T's Web site and can't find
> any confirmation. I've read the Om Malik interview and it sure does
> sound like iPhone 3G users will have to pay an extra $5/mo for 200
> SMS/mo, but I hope you and I are both wrong and O'Grady is right.

One can't go too far wrong discounting unconfirmed information from Jason
O'Grady. :)

Ralph de la Vega, president and chief executive officer of AT&T Mobility has
said "The SMS messages are not bundled anymore, and you pay for what you
want. Again, the prices are based on what you buy."

I'll go with what the AT&T guy says.
--
Shawn King

karl wonders...

> Ah, but what happens if my friend with an existing iPhone buys an
> iPhone 3G and I buy his old iPhone from him and sign up with AT&T?
> Can I get the "old" plan, or will I be paying the new higher price
> for service on an iPhone 1.0? Somehow, I don't think I will be
> given that choice.

I'm sure there will be potential for confusion at individual stores,
but it seemed clear that the higher-priced plan is explicitly a 3G
plan for use with the iPhone 3G, and that older iPhone models would
still be able to use the previous plan. That should be true whether
you already have an account or create a new one using an old iPhone.

  Mark H. Anbinder

--On June 16, 2008 12:50:12 AM -0700 "LewisGmail" <gkremegmail.com> wrote:

> Yes. Not only that, but in the US you are charged for Spam SMS
> messages, which are becoming more and more of a problem. You have no
> recourse, so my Father In Laws phone gets an extra $1 or 2 every
> single month for the spam SMS he receives. He doesn't use SMS
> messages at all, and every one of them confuses him. I suppose I
> could call t-mobile every single month for him, but my time is worth
> more than that...

There is a class action lawsuit covering this. The phone companies are
being sued because they don't have a way for users to block SMS if they
don't want them. Several companies, including AT&T, say they do have such
an option, but T-Mobile specifically told Ars Technica that they do not.

<http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080520-lawsuit-over-text-messages-ignores-sms-off-switches.html>

Kevin

On 6/16/08 3:50 AM, "LewisGmail" <gkremegmail.com> wrote:

> I suppose I
> could call t-mobile every single month for him, but my time is worth
> more than that...

Pogue may have a solution:
"T-Mobile: T-Mobile doesn¹t yet offer a ³block text messages from the
Internet² option. You can block all messages sent by e-mail, though, or
permit only messages sent to your phone¹s e-mail address or alias, or create
filters that block text messages containing certain phrases. It¹s all
waiting when you log into www.t-mobile.com and click Communication Tools."
<http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/how-to-block-cellphone-spam/>

He has solutions for other cellular providers, too.

--
Shawn King

I don't know how T-Mobile works, but on my Verizon account, I received three different spam "premium text messages". Premium text messages cost $10.00 to receive. There is no way to refuse them. When I called Verizon to complain, they said I'd have to take it up with the company who spammed me, since the bill was actually from them and just passed on by Verizon (as part of the monthly bill). Which strikes me as patent nonsense, since surely Verizon has a right to refuse to include fraudulent charges on their bills. But, that's what they told me. The rep said that the only way to avoid getting such text messages is to disable text messaging completely on my account. Since I have no nada zilch interest in text messaging, that was a perfect solution for me; I told them to do just that. Perhaps T-Mobile can disable text messaging on your dad-in-law's account.

--Steve--

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:50 AM, LewisGmail <gkremegmail.com> wrote:
> On 13-Jun-2008, at 08:11, Michael Villebeck wrote:
>>
>> Isn't it so that in the USA the cell phone owner is charged for
>> incoming calls? In Europe (at least in the countries I know of) it's
>> the caller who pays a premium for calling a cell phone, the cell phone
>> owner isn't charged anything for the incoming calls.
>
> Yes. Not only that, but in the US you are charged for Spam SMS
> messages, which are becoming more and more of a problem. You have no
> recourse, so my Father In Laws phone gets an extra $1 or 2 every
> single month for the spam SMS he receives.

All the major U.S. carriers have will take off all SMS charges that
are spam. Just call them up and ask. In fact, they really want to know
in order to improve their spam filters.

Second of all, all U.S. carriers now have ways of stopping SMS from
email which is where most SMS spam comes from. David Pogue covered
this in his last blog post:
<http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/how-to-block-cellphone-spam/>.

I can see advantages of the European plan: You don't pay when others
call you in Europe, which means that I only pay if I dial the number.
It'd be like paying for each letter you received whether you wanted
the letter or not.

I do see why we don't do it that way in America. Most Americans have
unlimited calling in large local areas. Most have fixed 10/minute
rates anywhere in the country. More and more are getting nationwide
plans with completely free long distance. Imagine my chagrin if I can
call someone from California to New York and yammer away for two hours
for free, but calling my friend around the block will cost me just
because my friend gave me his cellphone number. This is especially
true as more and more people drop their landline in favor of
cellphones.

Besides, I don't think this is as much of a problem anymore. Most
American plans include about 500 minutes minimum. If someone calls me,
and I don't feel like wasting my cellphone minutes, I can ask him to
call me at a local landline. I'm just out a single minute from my 500.
In the old days when you only got 60 minutes and then paid almost
$1.50 for every minute over, that single minute use to mean quite a
bit. Imagine fielding 2 or 3 unwanted incoming calls each day, and you
can imagine someone using up their minutes without calling a single
person.

----

Now for Apple and AT&T: They're in this together. Apple agreed to have
AT&T subsidize the iPhone (Apple is probably still charging AT&T $400
for the device) with Apple agreeing to forgo their cut in the service
charge. Apple is anxious to hit that 10 million mark by December, and
cheaper iPhones and more countries will help them hit it.

As for AT&T charging more, I can't really blame them. Blackberry and
most other Smartphone users mainly transfer text (for emails and SMS).
iPhone users use the Web -- and not the crippled text oriented WAP
version either. They download all those JPGs and watch those Youtube
videos in their full bandwidth hogging glory.

I bet a typical iPhone user uses about 3 to 5 times as much bandwidth
as a typical Blackberry user. As I tell my friends: An iPhone is an
okay phone, a mediocre camera, and a not very easy to use text message
sender. What makes the iPhone "the iPhone" is that it is the best
portable Internet connected device in this sector of the galaxy.

AT&T charging pretty much equivalent to their Blackberry users makes a
lot of sense.

One factor that no one has factored into these calculations is the
effect of sales tax. You might have expected that you would actually
gain a bit since the direct cost of the phone to you is less than
before. However, in California, the probable effect is that you will
pay the same or more sales tax as before and suffer some sticker shock
at the time of purchase.

Some disclaimers first. As my only experience with purchasing cell
phones with long term contracts is in California, I will discuss the
situation only for that state. Also, I am not a tax specialist; my
interest was aroused from my past experience in purchasing and
upgrading cell phones with service agreements.

The key point is that when you purchase a cell phone with a service
agreement in California, the sales tax is determined on the
undiscounted price of the phone, not the price you pay <http://www.boe.ca.gov/pdf/pub120.pdf
 >. Note that while this price is substantially more than the price
paid with the agreement (especially when the phone is 'free'), it is
less than the price you would pay for an unlocked phone, since the
phone is still locked to the carrier. So, for example, a phone may be
sold with a 2-year plan for $49, but the non-plan price for the same
phone, locked to that carrier, may be $249. So in my city, where the
tax rate is 8.75%, I would pay $17.50 more at the time of sale than if
I were taxed on the apparent price. (Sales taxes for California
jurisdictions range from 7.25% to 8.75% <http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/pam71.htm
 >).

So how does this affect the iPhone where no one has declared an
undiscounted price? Apple and AT&T will need to establish a price from
replacing lost or user-damaged phones. Since AT&T will not be deriving
income from a new subscription for these phones, that will be the
undiscounted price. If it is the same as the current price of the 2G
phones, then you will have ended up paying the same sales tax for the
3G phone as for the 2G phone. However, if the price is established at
a higher level, then you will be paying more, and you will be paying
it when you initially purchase the phone.


Alan Forkosh Oakland, CA
aforkoshmac.com

On 16-Jun-2008, at 01:50, Mark H. Anbinder wrote:
> karl wonders...
>> Ah, but what happens if my friend with an existing iPhone buys an
>> iPhone 3G and I buy his old iPhone from him and sign up with AT&T?
>> Can I get the "old" plan, or will I be paying the new higher price
>> for service on an iPhone 1.0? Somehow, I don't think I will be
>> given that choice.
>
> I'm sure there will be potential for confusion at individual stores,
> but it seemed clear that the higher-priced plan is explicitly a 3G
> plan for use with the iPhone 3G, and that older iPhone models would
> still be able to use the previous plan. That should be true whether
> you already have an account or create a new one using an old iPhone.

The question that really needs asking though is, what about someone
with a new 3G iPhone who either doesn't want 3G or doesn't live in a
3G area. They are still going to be sce^Wforced to use the new 3G
plan, I'd guess?

On 17-Jun-2008, at 16:32, David Weintraub wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:50 AM, LewisGmail <gkremegmail.com> wrote:
>> On 13-Jun-2008, at 08:11, Michael Villebeck wrote:
>>>
>>> Isn't it so that in the USA the cell phone owner is charged for
>>> incoming calls? In Europe (at least in the countries I know of) it's
>>> the caller who pays a premium for calling a cell phone, the cell
>>> phone
>>> owner isn't charged anything for the incoming calls.
>>
>> Yes. Not only that, but in the US you are charged for Spam SMS
>> messages, which are becoming more and more of a problem. You have no
>> recourse, so my Father In Laws phone gets an extra $1 or 2 every
>> single month for the spam SMS he receives.
>
> All the major U.S. carriers have will take off all SMS charges that
> are spam. Just call them up and ask. In fact, they really want to know
> in order to improve their spam filters.

Sure, but with an average call time for this at over 30 minutes (every
time I've called it's require 'escalation' and a second round in the
musak queue) my time is worth more than the 1 or 2 dollars a month.

> Second of all, all U.S. carriers now have ways of stopping SMS from
> email which is where most SMS spam comes from.

Not the messages I am seeing. At least not as far as I can tell.

> David Pogue covered
> this in his last blog post:
> <http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/how-to-block-cellphone-spam/
> >.

Yep, and tmobile is (I think intentionally) extremely confusing on
that score. They make money off the spammers, so they have absolutely
no interest in making the anti-spam measures work very well or be easy
to deal with.

On 6/17/08 6:37 PM, "LewisGmail" <gkremegmail.com> wrote:

> The question that really needs asking though is, what about someone
> with a new 3G iPhone who either doesn't want 3G or doesn't live in a
> 3G area. They are still going to be sce^Wforced to use the new 3G
> plan, I'd guess?

Yes - but that's no different than any other product you buy.

Just because you don't use all the features doesn't mean you don't have to
pay full price.
--
Shawn King

On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 6:32 PM, SteveJ1 <stevej1mac.com> wrote:
> I don't know how T-Mobile works, but on my Verizon account, I received three different spam
> "premium text messages". Premium text messages cost $10.00 to receive. There is no way to
> refuse them. When I called Verizon to complain, they said I'd have to take it up with the company
> who spammed me, since the bill was actually from them and just passed on by Verizon (as part of
> the monthly bill). Which strikes me as patent nonsense, since surely Verizon has a right to refuse to > > include fraudulent charges on their bills.

Believe it or not, Verizon has no right to refuse these charges. It's
part of the original Telecom act. There was fear that people might
want premium services, but the local telco would monopolize them by
simply not allowing others to bill you. So, the government took action
for your benefit by preventing the local phone company from stopping
these charges. No need to thank those brave bureaucrats. They're just
doing their job.

Of course, con artists quickly realized the implications: You bill
someone for the service, and the local phone company *has* to pass
those charges through. Of course, it's pretty easy dealing with a
large company that has a physical presence in your state like the
local phone company. If the company misbehaves, they get hit by the
state and can have their assets seized.

Some broiler shop operation doesn't have the same issues. They offer
some "premium service", bill you, the local phone company must pass it
along, and the money roles in. By the time the law starts adding a bit
of heat, they've shut down the company, moved on, and opened another.

--
David Weintraub
qazwartgmail.com

On Jun 17, 2008, kevinv wrote:
>The phone companies are being sued because they don't have a way for
>users to block SMS if they don't want them. Several companies,
>including AT&T, say they do have such an option...

My wife has a Verizon cell phone account, and uses a very old phone
which probably can't even receive an SMS. Several months ago, a
charge of US$.05 appeared on her monthly bill for an incoming text
message, which of course she had never seen. I called Verizon's
customer service; in response, Verizon cancelled that charge and
locked her account so that any incoming SMS will be rejected. Since
then - no more SMS charges. My wife is a happy customer.

--- begin forwarded text

I agree with the math, but there is more. IPhone is a 3G product but
AT&T is not totally 3G. I can't get 3G in northern lower Michigan, but
there's no way to avoid the charges. I pay for, and get, a cell phone
that costs more but cannot use a major feature. Coupled with the math
you have pointed out, why buy one? I'm just as well off with my
current plan and Motorola RAZR and banking the difference. Well,
actually ahead.

Maybe it is time for the older phone on eBay. This now makes no sense.

Tom

--- end forwarded text

--- begin forwarded text

At 2:14 PM -0700 6/19/08, Thomas Barnhart wrote:
>I forgot one more thing - to paraphrase Steve Jobs: There is no
>reduction in fees after the two year contract. The subsidy is fully
>paid, but the increase goes on. And on. Of course, one can buy another
>phone which gives one two more years of contract but reduces ATT's
>profit.
>
>The iPhone continues to lose after the two year period, no matter how
>you slice it. The (now) old way makes much more sense. Maybe that's
>why ATT changed the program.
>
>Tom

--- end forwarded text

On 6/21/08 5:06 PM, "Shawn King" <shawnyourmaclifeshow.com> wrote:

>> The question that really needs asking though is, what about someone
>> with a new 3G iPhone who either doesn't want 3G or doesn't live in a
>> 3G area. They are still going to be sce^Wforced to use the new 3G
>> plan, I'd guess?
>
> Yes - but that's no different than any other product you buy.
>
> Just because you don't use all the features doesn't mean you don't have to
> pay full price.

Every car I have bought since 2000 has, due to packaging options, come with
cruise control. I never use it. However, I still pay for it because it's
part of other options I *do* use. I'm sure there's people going "WTF is this
suspension cruft, I just wanted cruise control". They get the same answer.

I've had options on every phone I've owned that I never used. Yes, even the
iPhone. Still paid for them, because there were other things I DID want, and
no way to get them otherwise. Such is life


--
John C. Welch

Shawn King wrote:
> On 6/17/08 6:37 PM, "LewisGmail" <gkremegmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The question that really needs asking though is, what about someone
>> with a new 3G iPhone who either doesn't want 3G or doesn't live in a
>> 3G area. They are still going to be sce^Wforced to use the new 3G
>> plan, I'd guess?
>
> Yes - but that's no different than any other product you buy.
>
> Just because you don't use all the features doesn't mean you don't have to
> pay full price.

Yep. Just how many SUV drivers actually tow something weighing 4000 pounds or more? Or have ever ever switched out of 2 wheel drive. :)

David

John C. Welch wrote:
> On 6/21/08 5:06 PM, "Shawn King" <shawnyourmaclifeshow.com> wrote:
>
>> Just because you don't use all the features doesn't mean you don't have to
>> pay full price.
>
> Every car I have bought since 2000 has, due to packaging options, come with
> cruise control. I never use it. However, I still pay for it because it's
> part of other options I *do* use. I'm sure there's people going "WTF is this
> suspension cruft, I just wanted cruise control". They get the same answer.

Sorry but WITH $4/gal gas you DO NOT use cruse control?!?!?!

> I've had options on every phone I've owned that I never used. Yes, even the
> iPhone. Still paid for them, because there were other things I DID want, and
> no way to get them otherwise. Such is life

I got my Samsung M500 so all 4 of us could have the same phone and it fits almost anywhere. But none of us have ever downloaded a song, game, watched ESPN, or bought stock with the thing. It's a great little phone but sheez, what were they thinking.

David

Kevin van Haaren wrote:
> --On June 16, 2008 12:50:12 AM -0700 "LewisGmail" <gkremegmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes. Not only that, but in the US you are charged for Spam SMS
>> messages, which are becoming more and more of a problem. You have no
>> recourse, so my Father In Laws phone gets an extra $1 or 2 every
>> single month for the spam SMS he receives. He doesn't use SMS
>> messages at all, and every one of them confuses him. I suppose I
>> could call t-mobile every single month for him, but my time is worth
>> more than that...
>
> There is a class action lawsuit covering this. The phone companies are
> being sued because they don't have a way for users to block SMS if they
> don't want them. Several companies, including AT&T, say they do have such
> an option, but T-Mobile specifically told Ars Technica that they do not.

Interesting. When I got our family new cell phones (M500s) almost 2 years ago, we did sign up for unlimited basic SMS at $20 for the plan. After a few phone calls to remove $30 to $50 in premium charges from my kids bills I talked to a service tech where they had just instituted a new set of options. Block all, block all but basic, etc...

But at $20 a month total for the plan it's great. I can now get in touch with my wife (she works in a call center and answering a cell phone is usually not possible) send a note to my kids at school, etc... all knowing they'll get it when they can get it. Now my kids have gone a bit nuts. My daughter runs at about 1000 per month, my son at 1500 or more. :)

As to where the premium message came from I learned a few things. Anyone can sign up for ring tones with just a phone number and the sleazy companies send you a premium text message with the results. And as best I can tell these mostly came from "friends" answering surveys for things like "give us 10 numbers of your friends and get a free ring tone" or other such nonsense. Then you get them. I'm also suspicious that the really low end sleazy ones skim phone numbers off facebook, myspace, yahoo groups, etc... and just send a premium text and see what happens.

But as to blocking this nonsense, Sprint has had this for over a year now.

David