![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
I agree; work/personal on one phone or two completely different networks on a dual SIM phone is more appropriate than my current use of the technology.
However this was a test and now that I know it works I can look at my future options, however I am not rushing into things.
Anyone on Warehouse Mobile getting text messages that your out of credit when your not?
I have $3, yet got a text message today saying I was out of credit (not low on credit)
I've now changed over. I got my Vodafone account down under two bucks and pulled the Vodafone SIM, put in the WM SIM and got it all setup. I've ported my number over and purchased a $4 data pack.
I have to wonder about the pricing of data though. Texts are 2c each or $4 per month for unlimited, seems reasonable enough. Calls are 4c each or $4 for 120 minutes, this seems a little less worthwhile as 4c per minute means that 120 minutes would cost $4.80 so it doesn't strike me as being very compelling to buy the pack, I'm happy to just make calls when needed and pay the 4c/min. Data is 6c per MB or $4 per month for up to 500MB, the pack gives $30 worth of data for $4 which is really good value compared to the casual rate.
But why is the casual rate for data 6c per MB rather than maybe 2c per MB? If I can get 500MB for $4 then it doesn't seem sensible that casual data should cost 6c/MB. Even at 2c/MB the $4 pack would offer $10 worth of data which is still a much higher ratio than paying $4 for $4.80 worth of calls.
From a mathematical point of view it seems to me that the casual rates should be 2c per text, 4c per min & 2c (rather than 6c) per MB. The packs should be $4 for unlimited texts, $4 for 200 (rather than 120) minutes and $4 per 500MB.
MarkH67:But why is the casual rate for data 6c per MB rather than maybe 2c per MB? If I can get 500MB for $4 then it doesn't seem sensible that casual data should cost 6c/MB. Even at 2c/MB the $4 pack would offer $10 worth of data which is still a much higher ratio than paying $4 for $4.80 worth of calls.
stinger: The only reason I can think of is that 2 degrees don't want to cannibalize customers on their main plans (especially the $19 carry over data). The ml only difference between the $19 combo and the three packs on WM ($12 for 100 minutes, unlimited texts and 500 MB data) is free calling to other 2 degree numbers.
The other point is not all customers use data. My mum for example doesn't use data when she is away from home.
I don't think it matters that not all customers use data. The packs are available for those that want it and the casual rate is available for those that need data but haven't bought a pack. Just like I don't see a need for a call or text pack and therefore don't need a combo (the combos save nothing, just a way of buying 3 packs in one go).
I see those looking for a bargain will quickly realise that the WM pricing is better than the 2D pricing even as it stands now. For me is is a LOT better because I don't need a text or call pack and I will be able to keep my spend down to ~$5 per month ($4 data pack + average of $1 or less on calls & texts) = $60 per year.
2D would cost 12 x $19 = $228 per year.
Skinny would cost 13 x $16 = $208 per year and you would get 13 x 1.25GB rollover data which is better than 2D's 12 x 1GB rollover data despite Skinny costing $20 less per year.
Vodafone would cost (wow, costs have dropped since I last looked) 13 x $12 for 50 minutes, 50 texts and 1GB data per 28 days - which would be enough for my needs, total of $156 per year.
Spark would cost 13 x $19 = $247, the dearest plan. You would get 1.25GB x 13 and 200 minutes x 13 and unlimited texts.
For me it is a choice of a yearly cost of Spark - $247, 2D - $228, Skinny - $208, Vodafone - $156 or WM - $60. It should be obvious why I've switched to WM. WM also have the best casual rates by far which makes them the most forgiving for anyone that exceeds their plan. The biggest drawback is probably the data & calls only rolling over for up to 3 months rather than a year like the rest. In my case saving so much money easily negates that small drawback.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |