Current AT&T GoPhone Rates/FAQs

[Guest 123]

29.99: 200 minutes
39.99: 300-350 minutes, 500 n&w, unl. m2m
49.99: 400-450 minutes, 3000 n&w, unl. m2m
69.99: 650 minutes, unl. n&w, unl. m2m.

The following are new PYP's that are available in these select markets; Los Angeles, EAstern Philadelphia, Southern NJ, Delaware, South Texas, Virginia, Washington DC, and Baltimore.

oh and media net is
1 MB 4.99
5 MB 9.99
100 MB 19.99 ( Not too long ago gophone stopped unl net, month or so after wards Feb. 3rd, gophone started offering 100 MB instead)

As long as we are updating the information in this thread. The 5MB/$9.99 package that you have listed here has been discontinued as well.

[GadgetKen]

Another service is #121 (charges only airtime). It's the interactive voice based web TellMe Networks that AT&T bought, then I think sold to Microsoft. News, sports, weather, games, traffic directions. Handy if you need basic information quickly without looking at a cellphone screen. Voice recognition works best in places without significant background noise. Backdoor from a landline (free call) or another carrier is 1-800-555-TELL. Microsoft duded it up for Blackberry screen access as well: http://www.tellme.com/you

[jdw4jesus]

Is it possible for an admin to make the necessary changes to the OP. The prices are quite outdated.

Thanks!

[defender007]

hey, when did goPhone stop giving 20$ bonuses on 5th level? I just added a 100$ card and only got a 10$ bonus instead of the usual 20$!

[The_Sweeper]

hey, when did goPhone stop giving 20$ bonuses on 5th level? I just added a 100$ card and only got a 10$ bonus instead of the usual 20$!

It was first reported here back in early December of 2008...

http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=1467995

[peachtreedreams09]

You could register the imei of a cheap US gophone (buy one on ebay) and then transfer the sim to your iphone if you wished to keep your iphone imei anonymous until you transfer the sim. Some dealers will also sell preactivated sims if you wish to purchase that way.
Please note you will need to buy 30 day data feature packages when visiting the US by calling 611 and saying "feature packages" and then "media net" (1 or 5 mb on pay as you go) but much cheaper than fido roaming rates in the US for data.
Enjoy your trip to the US!

Would the same apply to a Blackjack 2? I'm thinking about using my expired Nokia 2610 I bought at Wal-Mart as an activator then switching the sim to a Blackjack 2 that i'm acquiring from a friend. I noticed that in Dollar General, they sell either 1000 texts or 5MB for $9.99 (I used less than that in a month paying $29.99 on postpay on a Blackberry--plus if I need more, I can buy another card). I might drop the internet on my VZW postpay account because it goes in an out in a heartbeat.

[efparri]

Would the same apply to a Blackjack 2? I'm thinking about using my expired Nokia 2610 I bought at Wal-Mart as an activator then switching the sim to a Blackjack 2 that i'm acquiring from a friend. I noticed that in Dollar General, they sell either 1000 texts or 5MB for $9.99 (I used less than that in a month paying $29.99 on postpay on a Blackberry--plus if I need more, I can buy another card). I might drop the internet on my VZW postpay account because it goes in an out in a heartbeat.

Be advised that the feature cards only add the funds to your account balance. You still have to call to purchase the feature as described in the message you quoted.

[mharris127]

hey, when did goPhone stop giving 20$ bonuses on 5th level? I just added a 100$ card and only got a 10$ bonus instead of the usual 20$!

I was notified a couple of months ago -- I think it was by text, though, so if you don't know how to use that feature you would have never seen it (I hate texting but do know how to retreive a message).

[defender007]

That's weird I never got the text, but then again I only use this when I go down to the US...

[South Bay]

I’ve been using Virgin Mobile since 2003, but just this week I purchased two different AT&T GoPhones (Motorola C168i & C139) from Rite-Aid, both of which still contain the $10 airtime PIN’s. Neither of the PIN’s work, however, apparently because AT&T has cancelled all of the $10 airtime PINs in existence, including the ones in unsold phones still offered for sale in various stores across the country.

From reading various posts in this forum, it appears these PINs were cancelled by AT&T over a year ago "because people were abusing them" (thanks to tszefr for this insight [http://www.howardforums.com/showthre...page=13&pp=15]) by allegedly selling or trading away the PIN's on eBay or through other methods. By cancelling the PIN’s in currently advertised and unsold phone packages, however (and then not placing a disclaimer on either the packaging or the display advertising), AT&T has committed, and is continuing to commit, false advertising, breach of contract, and unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts and practices, among various civil law violations.

What’s especially noteworthy about this issue is that I already went through virtually the same problem with VM back in 2005-2006, and ended up having to file a class-action lawsuit against them (which VM quickly settled). It turns out that VM had been selling their phones claiming that $10 starter airtime was included, but had changed the amount to only $2.50 without notifying anyone (or placing a disclaimer on the packaging), and cheated approximately 1.4 million customers out of more than $10 million in total starter airtime. (For a news report on that lawsuit, go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3zhwDTDbJc).

So now that I’ve finally switched from VM to AT&T, I soon discovered I’m now being cheated by AT&T on starter airtime (this time for the full $10), as AT&T states they have discontinued the “program” and replaced it with a further $25 purchase requirement (in order to "qualify" for the $10 airtime for which I already paid). AT&T also claims they can change their terms and conditions any time they want (exact same thing VM said). But AT&T’s actions constitute the same classic “bait and switch” tactics that VM used, all of which are highly illegal under various civil fraud statutes, both in California and New York (and probably most other states), and under corresponding federal laws and regulations.

AT&T is now a larger prepaid wireless company than VM, thus AT&T’s fraud may be even greater than the $10 million that Virgin Mobile stole from their customers through the similar scheme. At present, I cannot locate anything in writing from AT&T (Go Phone packaging, website, or corporate stores) indicating that the $10 airtime PIN’s were ever lawfully deactivated or cancelled, or were otherwise limited to a certain period of time. AT&T’s failure to place a disclaimer on the packaging means that any customer who purchases a phone which includes the $10 airtime offer is legally entitled to the $10, period, end of story.

A related issue concerns whether those PIN’s that were sold or traded by the original owner also must legally be credited to the present PIN holder’s AT&T GoPhone account, or whether those PIN’s were limited to the phone for which they were originally issued. In the absence of any such disclaimer limiting use to that particular phone, it would appear these customers have equal standing to now insist that the PIN’s be credited to their present GoPhone account. (So don’t throw out all those $10 airtime PIN’s just yet.)

If anyone has any further information about the circumstances surrounding AT&T’s cancelling of these airtime PIN’s, or has any written confirmation of this AT&T policy (such as emails from AT&T), please post on this forum, or send a pm to me. I’m now contemplating the legal steps I (and others) should take against AT&T to recover the $10 in promised airtime PIN usage, and may ultimately seek court intervention both to compensate all current $10 PIN holders, and to stop AT&T from knowingly and willingly advertising and selling prepaid GoPhones with deactivated or cancelled airtime PIN’s without providing the legally mandated disclaimers.

South Bay Scott

[efparri]

AT&T is not responsible for GoPhones sold by retailers. The retailer should rotate its old stock. No one paid extra to get the $10.00 credit so it is not a loss to any customer. Some GoPhone kits actually sold for less than the $10.00 credit.

[Yeswap]

AT&T is not responsible for GoPhones sold by retailers. The retailer should rotate its old stock. No one paid extra to get the $10.00 credit so it is not a loss to any customer. Some GoPhone kits actually sold for less than the $10.00 credit.

This seems like a clear case of false and deceptive advertising and breach of contract. A $10 credit was promised and not delivered.

I believe that the seller has a legal and moral obligation to either provide equivalent compensation such as $10 in cash or credit or to cancel the sale and refund the purchaser's money. I don't not know if it's Rite Aid or AT&T that is responsible but I'm sure that if this ever went to court one or the other would end up paying.

Of course in a class action suit the lawyers end up with a huge chunk of any award. Personally for $10 I don't think it's worth the time and trouble involved but if South Bay Scott wants to pursue he should go for it.

[GadgetKen]

It's still possible to get $20 in bonuses for every $100 in airtime purchases by legally double dipping. There's the current AT&T $10 bonus plus you can double dip by either using a store quick-refill card like the one I have from Target (five $20 refills gets me a $10 airtime bonus; just got a bonus today) or several internet airtime refill sites also offer bonuses of various sizes. Also some of these internet sites have new customer bonuses and/or accept promo codes posted on various websites.
Had fun using my AT&T Tilt on Amtrak from CT down to DC over July 4th week(first time on Amtrak; choked when I saw the airfare prices on my travel dates and correctly figured I could travel in comfort in Amtrak business class for a fraction of the airfare/parking/luggage fee costs). Bought a MediaNet 100 mb package and wirelessly tethered my Tilt to my new Macbook with a bluetooth PAN and still had lots left on the package when I returned. Did briefly lose signal a couple of times going through long tunnels though (like southbound from NYC Penn station, although very strong signal inside the train station). Curious if someone on Verizon would have maintained their signal (Verizon has underground service in some locations like in the DC metro).Didn't need MediaNet at the hotel, because they had free (and extremely fast) wifi throughout the hotel.

[South Bay]

AT&T is not responsible for GoPhones sold by retailers. The retailer should rotate its old stock. No one paid extra to get the $10.00 credit so it is not a loss to any customer. Some GoPhone kits actually sold for less than the $10.00 credit.

Earl,

I have a few concerns with your brief comments on AT&T’s duties and responsibilities regarding the GoPhones they market and sell through their authorized venders and retailers. Accordingly, I have listed a few thoughts and illustrations concerning your above comments, and have expanded the discussion with other supporting information. Please excuse any verbosity, but I believe the additional information is relevant and will help more fully explain the issues at hand, and perhaps help foster further discussion on the thread (or elsewhere).

My first point is that AT&T has a legal obligation to insure that its products are lawfully advertised and marketed by their own venders, whether or not AT&T has actual or final control over them. AT&T cannot just take a “hands-off” approach, and tell Rite-Aid (or other retailers) to market and sell the phones with the $10 offer, and then abandon them to the wolves. It’s similar to a company not backing up a rebate offer (although of course, rebates come with expiration dates, something not present with the AT&T PIN’s at issue). Once AT&T changed the terms and conditions affecting the airtime PIN’s, at a minimum they had a duty to promptly notify those retailers with whom they still had ongoing contractual relationships. AT&T certainly had to be aware that several of their affected models were (and are) still extant on store shelves, as all companies have reps that periodically update and check on the status of their product lines. If this did not occur, perhaps it was from AT&T's failure in general to notify anyone about their earlier cancellations of the PIN's (apparently including their own reps).

Second, the phones are advertised and sold in a competitive market, so AT&T is trying to increase sales and market share by offering the most attractive product for a competitive price. Take for instance, two phones selling side by side, one from Boost, the other from AT&T, both with $10 free airtime, and both selling for the exact same price (say $20). The customer sees the similar deal and is assured that whichever phone is purchased, it will come with the $10 airtime (because the advertising says so). But unbeknownst to the customer, AT&T had withdrawn the $10 airtime offer over one year prior, thus if the AT&T phone is selected, that customer has actually made a bad consumer choice, based solely on readily available (but ultimately false) information, and later suffers for it by having to then purchase that $10 of airtime (as part of a $15 or $25 card), thus increasing the actual price of the product by $10. In the above example, the consumer pays $30 for what could have been purchased from another company for $20. So the customer ultimately looses $10 on the deal, due to the false and deceptive advertising provided by AT&T.

And third, the ultimate selling price of the GoPhones has no bearing on this discussion, as AT&T has no control over their final price (retailers frequently use them as “loss leaders” to increase other sales). But following this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, if a retailer happens to sell the phone for less than $10—or just gives it away with another purchase (see GadgetKen, post #157), under this implied theory, it would somehow then be justified for AT&T to cancel the $10 PIN. Stated another way, it means that those customers who search for and obtain an excellent deal for a GoPhone may then be penalized and disqualified from receiving (or even expecting) the $10 airtime, while others who paid the standard price (or even more) for the phone should then of course receive the airtime. As this whole line of reasoning is actually an “apples and oranges” argument, it’s no longer worthy of further discussion here.

AT&T made a marketing decision to do away with the $10 PIN’s, for whatever reason (which also is not germane to this discussion). AT&T no doubt weighed the pros and cons of the move, with the pros being increased sales of the $25 card (hence profits), the prevention of the $10 PIN’s from being used (or resold) in a manner that allegedly (according to AT&T) amounted to “abuse” (and about which they clearly should have first considered and fully worked out prior to marketing the phones). (Doesn’t AT&T have some sort of familiarity with these types of issues?) Some cons are customer dissatisfaction (and loss of customer loyalty), the responsibility to address customer concerns and reimburse those who catch and complain about the promised (but now worthless) $10 PIN’s, and the costs of defending their actions in a court of law (or elsewhere), should any legal actions ensue. (There are obviously many other relevant pros and cons.)

For awhile, AT&T was giving the $10 credit, albeit only after the customer jumped through many hoops (see tszefr, post #186). Thus early on, AT&T recognized their legal obligation to reimburse their customers, albeit only those with enough stamina to get through AT&T’s many roadblocks. But not all customers have the time, knowledge, or patience to do this for only $10 (and for which AT&T probably has reams of statistics showing the rate of complaints granted vs. the degree of difficulty and amount of money involved. It’s not unlike rebates, for which there is a known and direct correlation between the monetary amounts of the rebates vs. their rate of redemption.)

Major corporations make decisions all the time that may negatively impact their customers, and the cost vs. benefit analysis is ALWAYS a part of their decision-making process, with the classic example being Ford Motor’s decision to not fix their Pinto’s gas tanks with an $11 part as being ultimately more expensive than just paying off those customers who were injured or burned to a crisp in rear-end collisions. Ford’s actions may have saved them $100 million,* and AT&T in this instance has made a similar (and simplistic) decision that the various benefits of discontinuing the $10 PIN’s will surpass their ultimate costs, be they monetary or otherwise. It’s as simple as that.
(*Ford Pinto Memo @ http://www.calbaptist.edu/dskubik/pinto.htm).

Ultimately, if resorting to a lawsuit is necessary, its not only about reimbursing those few customers who may still have their PIN’s handy (or perhaps can prove once had them), or the reeling in of the still extant GoPhones from store shelves, but rather, letting AT&T (and other like-minded corporations) know that they should ALWAYS weigh (and include) not only the costs of later having to defend their actions in court, but the intangible costs to their reputation as well, should they later be shown to have taken advantage of their customers. It’s also to let the little guy know that there are others out there who WILL stand up for their rights, especially when those collective rights add up to millions in unwarranted profits to a longstanding symbol of corporate perfidy, MA Bell (a.k.a. the “new” AT&T) (though it appears that the “new” is just like the “old.”)

But even more than money, it’s mostly about the principles involved, and about asking AT&T to just “follow the rules” as is expected of everyone else. History has show, time and again, that companies (and people) become emboldened and brash when they think they can break the rules with impunity, and knowing that no one will challenge them, one little misdeed becomes a string of ever larger and larger ones until one day everyone finally wakes up and says, how did all of this ever occur? Wasn’t the government watching them? Didn’t anyone complain? Why didn’t somebody do something?

AT&T could have easily insulated themselves from their present liability by taking the simple steps of providing stickers to their authorized retailers (to be affixed to their unsold GoPhones), changing their display ads, and posting a notice on their GoPhone website; all simply indicating that the $10 offer had been withdrawn (disclaimers). But this would have meant the loss of sales (and market share), so instead AT&T designed a clever “replacement” program that at first blush looks like a reasonable alternative to their original offer. But the new offer even misleads most of the non-AT&T store clerks selling the GoPhones, who generally fail to discern the difference between the “$10 airtime included,” and the “$10 airtime bonus” language found on the various phone packages. It’s clear AT&T intended this to occur (why else would the new offer have wording so similar to the old one . . . it's designed so that most people won't notice the difference).

Instead, AT&T’s new offer is a kind of “fool’s bargain” that cannot hold up under any scrutiny. Under their new program, the customer cannot even try out the phone, since a further (non-refundable) $15 investment is required (or $25 for those customers who want the $10 bonus). Thus, even if the customer is ultimately unsatisfied and returns the phone for a refund, AT&T has still made $15 (or more likely, $25) off the deal (and they even get to leave their retailers holding the bag.) That’s what I’d call a slick trick! And this AT&T duplicity was (supposedly) in response to their just as slick (in a different way) customers who understood the basics and nuances of the various AT&T offerings, and who then legally exploited those offerings. But AT&T couldn't take it, so they clamped down hard, and acting like a spoiled brat, AT&T took back the baseball and said nobody’s going to play ball anymore unless they play my way. Waaaa. . .

And lastly, since AT&T never advised their vendors that the phones may be old stock (or perhaps needed to be rotated), there was no responsibility on the part of any vendors to do so. Perhaps if AT&T had just been forthright from the start with all parties involved, these problems and issues would have never occurred. But alas, AT&T has never even formally admitted that the PIN’s were cancelled, and must now bear any consequences that flow from their wily (and concealed) actions in this still continuing issue.

Truly, AT&T will be hoisted by their own petard.

South Bay Scott

[efparri]

Perhaps this news release explains AT&T's rationale for discontinuing the PINs, which others in this forum have admitted to stockpiling:
http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pi...rticleid=26921
The PINs were paired with a single phone. There is no logical reason why a person purchasing a single phone would save the PINs rather than use them with the GoPhone kit with which they were purchased. No one has a right to expect something offered free to be available forever. Since you just purchased a GoPhone kit, only those already have an account with AT&T would have been notified of the changes to the redemption of PINs. How were you harmed as a noncustomer? You should take your phone back to the place from which purchased for a refund or replacement.