$99/mo without tethering is too much. I really think $75/mo WITH tethering is the maximum price. Any more than that is just unrealistic. Especially considering you can get MetroPCS for $50/mo with everything except tethering. I think paying $25 more for tethering + nationwide roaming is about right.
Sprint is about to start doing $120ish (not sure about tethering), and that's REALLY too much. Helio's normal price of $145 is just inane.
are you kidding me? You think $100 for unlimted EVERYTHING is too much?! You do realize MetroPCS's network is hardly a network compared to the network Helio is using. You get what you pay for.
Metro's network coverage isn't the issue -- most people don't travel enough to care about roaming charges when they're off of Metro's network, and for me personally most of my travel is to other Metro cities (so no roaming charges even when I do travel). The supposed advantages aren't really advantages when you actually stop and think about it. The only people who are willing to pay for $99/mo or more for unlimited service are either doing a LOT of travel to rural areas, minor cities, or the few major cities Metro doesn't support ... or they've got their head buried in the status-symbol sand and aren't looking for actual deals.
Further, as Metro expands (and they are), Helio and Sprint will have to compete with Metro's prices, whether they like it or not. If Sprint, for example, wants to stop hemorrhaging customers, they have to make sure that their urban customers aren't seeing Metro as a more attractive service (because it unquestionably is).
"The only people who are willing to pay for $99/mo or more for unlimited service are either doing a LOT of travel to rural areas, minor cities, or the few major cities Metro doesn't support ... or they've got their head buried in the status-symbol sand and aren't looking for actual deals."
Or they actually LIVE in 'rural areas, minor cities, or the few major cities Metro doesn't support,' which is WAY more often than not the case.
Saying that this is expensive just because there is a local service available to you that is less is like Bill Gates saying, "You can't afford a Ferrari? WTF!? My dog's glass nut cost more that a Ferrari!" or Muhammed saying, "What?! People actually pay for oil? That black *&^* that all over the place here? That's like paying to breathe!"
I'm just saying that while this may not be news for you, it is news for the 90% of us who aren't in the same situation as you.
Given that Metro's focus is on population centers, and that the people in those rural areas (traveling or living there) are significantly less numerous, I'm willing to bet that the number is significantly less than 90%.
Esp. once Metro finishes deploying in NYC (currently in the works).
And, either way, they have to compete with Metro's prices when they are in those zones. And in the rural areas, they have to compete with Cricket.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
$99/mo without tethering is too much. I really think $75/mo WITH tethering is the maximum price. Any more than that is just unrealistic. Especially considering you can get MetroPCS for $50/mo with everything except tethering. I think paying $25 more for tethering + nationwide roaming is about right.
Sprint is about to start doing $120ish (not sure about tethering), and that's REALLY too much. Helio's normal price of $145 is just inane.
are you kidding me? You think $100 for unlimted EVERYTHING is too much?! You do realize MetroPCS's network is hardly a network compared to the network Helio is using. You get what you pay for.
No, I'm not kidding.
Metro's network coverage isn't the issue -- most people don't travel enough to care about roaming charges when they're off of Metro's network, and for me personally most of my travel is to other Metro cities (so no roaming charges even when I do travel). The supposed advantages aren't really advantages when you actually stop and think about it. The only people who are willing to pay for $99/mo or more for unlimited service are either doing a LOT of travel to rural areas, minor cities, or the few major cities Metro doesn't support ... or they've got their head buried in the status-symbol sand and aren't looking for actual deals.
Further, as Metro expands (and they are), Helio and Sprint will have to compete with Metro's prices, whether they like it or not. If Sprint, for example, wants to stop hemorrhaging customers, they have to make sure that their urban customers aren't seeing Metro as a more attractive service (because it unquestionably is).
"The only people who are willing to pay for $99/mo or more for unlimited service are either doing a LOT of travel to rural areas, minor cities, or the few major cities Metro doesn't support ... or they've got their head buried in the status-symbol sand and aren't looking for actual deals."
Or they actually LIVE in 'rural areas, minor cities, or the few major cities Metro doesn't support,' which is WAY more often than not the case.
Saying that this is expensive just because there is a local service available to you that is less is like Bill Gates saying, "You can't afford a Ferrari? WTF!? My dog's glass nut cost more that a Ferrari!" or Muhammed saying, "What?! People actually pay for oil? That black *&^* that all over the place here? That's like paying to breathe!"
I'm just saying that while this may not be news for you, it is news for the 90% of us who aren't in the same situation as you.
Given that Metro's focus is on population centers, and that the people in those rural areas (traveling or living there) are significantly less numerous, I'm willing to bet that the number is significantly less than 90%.
Esp. once Metro finishes deploying in NYC (currently in the works).
And, either way, they have to compete with Metro's prices when they are in those zones. And in the rural areas, they have to compete with Cricket.