My husband moved to ting and how it made me realize somethings

[Gin1984]

I am still stuck on verizon because I have a contract till January.  My husband had a family plan with me, him and his mother (who has no credit).  She has been told she has till January to get off the plan, but until then she pays $45/month.  The plan was $30/person +5 plan cost, so we were paying $50/month.  Now we are paying $20 for me and $14 for him, so a $16/month saving.  However he did spend $140 for the phone, so it will take almost a year to pay that back. LOL, it often seems like the only way to save is to have money to start with.

[Greg]

Yes, it's true, the more money you have, the greater your opportunity to save it seems.  This often applies to so-called durable goods. The better quality ones cost more but save money in the long run.  Shoes, appliances, cars, tools, etc.

[plantingourpennies]

Obligatory-

“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”

[Daley]

I am still stuck on verizon because I have a contract till January.  My husband had a family plan with me, him and his mother (who has no credit).  She has been told she has till January to get off the plan, but until then she pays $45/month.  The plan was $30/person +5 plan cost, so we were paying $50/month.  Now we are paying $20 for me and $14 for him, so a $16/month saving.  However he did spend $140 for the phone, so it will take almost a year to pay that back. LOL, it often seems like the only way to save is to have money to start with.

This is one of the reasons why I recommend not just arbitrarily switching carriers. Granted, Verizon is a bit of a sticky situation with some of their LTE handsets going to an MVNO (especially if the LTE end doesn't support domestic GSM providers), but even that hurdle is ending in October with Page Plus.

I don't have anything against Ting as they're in the guide and I think they can be a reasonable deal for multiple lines, but this is part of the core reason why I think MMM's actual official "use Republic or Ting" line for saving money on cellphone costs is so antithetical to his greater message. With Ting, unless you're already with Sprint, you have to replace handsets to make the switch even if you already own a CDMA handset through Verizon, (pre AT&T) Cricket, US Cellular or any Sprint MVNOs. Republic is wholly proprietary and there's very little aftermarket. Both options require most people to keep running on the hedonic, consumerist treadmill to make the switch work, and both options use one of the smallest, poorest coverage networks in the nation. This isn't to say that Sprint coverage can't work for people (roaming or not), but if you're on Verizon or AT&T, it's not an improvement.

This is unnecessary and incredibly wasteful advice. You don't need to throw even more money at the problem and buy even more crap to replace perfectly usable and already paid for crap to save money on your mobile bills, you just need to learn to use less. There's plenty of good, solid MVNO options on all four major carriers... all of which have prices on service that can make both Ting and Republic look overpriced. It also strikes at a bigger issue I have with recommending CDMA providers in general due to the lack of handset portability between carriers, which is why I push people towards GSM unless they need the coverage of Verizon specifically. Not only can you take a GSM handset to any GSM provider and have it work, there's also a greater range of MVNOs and competitive plans.

As much as the Vimes Boots theory can be very relevant, most people's phones are already overbuilt clown-car priced devices and the truly durable ones are inversely some of the cheapest on the market. The reason why so many people's ROI on switching to cheaper mobile plans winds up pushing out so far is because nobody actually runs the math in advance, and they put on blinders to any suggestion beyond MMM's official party line.

[Gin1984]

You caught me early IP, I did read the guide and run the numbers.  :) With how little talk yet how much text we use, even with the phones, we came out ahead. 
ETA:  We are moving to DSL extreme in Jan because of you too!

[Daley]

You caught me early IP, I did read the guide and run the numbers.  :) With how little talk yet how much text we use, even with the phones, we came out ahead. 
ETA:  We are moving to DSL extreme in Jan because of you too!

Excellent to hear. That said, you do seem to be one in the minority here on the forums these days. It seems like nobody cares to actually do the math or work anymore. They just want to blindly buy their way into a supposed "deal". Isn't that how these people get into trouble in the first place with their spending?

[Jack]

As much as the Vimes Boots theory can be very relevant, most people's phones are already overbuilt clown-car priced devices and the truly durable ones are inversely some of the cheapest on the market.

"Durable" is a funny word to use in the context of cellphones. If we're talking about the theory that higher-quality goods are cheaper in the long term because they last longer, I'd say that argues in favor of higher-end phones that take longer to become obsolete, not cheap phones that admittedly withstand being drop-kicked better but suck to use.

In other words, when applying the "Boots theory" to cellphones, one should substitute "durable" with "future-proof."

(That's not to say that you should necessarily get the most expensive phone possible, but you should at least get one that's popular enough to get OS updates and/or CyanogenMod  support.)

[Daley]

"Durable" is a funny word to use in the context of cellphones. If we're talking about the theory that higher-quality goods are cheaper in the long term because they last longer, I'd say that argues in favor of higher-end phones that take longer to become obsolete, not cheap phones that admittedly withstand being drop-kicked better but suck to use.

In other words, when applying the "Boots theory" to cellphones, one should substitute "durable" with "future-proof."

(That's not to say that you should necessarily get the most expensive phone possible, but you should at least get one that's popular enough to get OS updates and/or CyanogenMod  support.)

Sorry, but that's flawed logic, partly because you're applying the Boots theory to a non-necessity. The more "advanced" the technology and greater the dependence upon software, the bigger the issue of planned obsolescence, and the more physically fragile the device becomes due to increased complexity. Security is a far bigger issue with smartphones, because they're designed to do far more things that require security... unfortunately, that security requires software updates. CM or no, smartphones get abandoned far more rapidly than feature phones.

Feature phones that are designed to primarily just communicate will work so long as they're physically functional and the network technology is used. There's no software maintenance or updates, no OS security vulnerabilities, on and on. They're cheaper, more rugged, last longer, and will have fewer issues overall due to the very same reduced functionality that you count as a negative.

[Lkxe]

Obligatory-

“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”

 I don't know who you ARE but you are my new best friend forever- So glad Vimes married well.

[Cassie]

I negotiated a great reduction with AT & T by telling them I could get a better deal with one of the carriers that would allow me to use the same phone.  It worked like a charm for a big savings.

[marty998]

Obligatory-

“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”

+1 for Discworld

(another fan)

[TeresaB]

You know, I realize this is not a thread about shoes, but I have never found it to be true that buying expensive shoes is worth it. I wreck a pair of shoes a season on a pretty regular basis. My current sandals are an exception (I should get at least two summers out of them) and they cost $20 at Marshall's.