I have a $20/month plan, and it includes 1 GB of data. Sometimes I need more data and sometimes I’m fine. The aggravating thing about purchasing extra data is for someone like me it only lasts a few days before the plan rolls over. So, it sounds petty, but not worth the extra $5 if it expires in 48 hours. My personal suggestion is you guys could be charging $8 or more for “overdraft” data, but have it roll over an extra month. It seems petty, but I’m compelled enough to write this message over it. I would likely purchase the extra data, but at the current moment you’re losing business.
Why must purchased data expire on billing date instead of a month after purchase?
Please return to flexibility
I brought this up when the one-time purchase was announced. It was made clear to me no one would ever have a problem with it. One of my granddaughters needed a little data a while back and decided against buying any because she was close to her plan anniversary.
This scheme makes no sense to me because I;m accustomed to getting a fixed value at a fixed price, not a variable value at a fixed price. Aren’t most people?
For better or worse, this is the nature of a breakage model. Most of us have insurance for one thing or another. Insurance is the classic breakage model. Fixed premiums, variable payout (claims), which hopefully turn out to be none.
Republic Data Insurance company?.
RW has the ways and means to allow at least a limited data rollover. A max rollover of 0.75-1.0 GB of accumulative rollover data would not break the bank ot their breakage model.
We ask for rollovers and/or free throttled data and RW gives us the Relay.
I merely used insurance as a common example of a breakage model we’re likely all quite familiar with. Gift cards are another common example. Rebates yet another.
How do we know this? Without access to inside information, it’s impossible for any of us to do more than guess what might or might not break the bank. Kudos to the original poster for being willing to recognize that the proposal for overdraft data as they put it might need to come with a higher price tag.
Republic gives Relay to no one. Republic sells Relay hardware and service to those interested. Time will tell what the market for that is.
Republic has tested the idea of throttled data. They have floated the idea of a data only SIM. They may or may not consider the possibility of some amount of rollover data. Some or all of these things might one day be leveraged to add value to Republic’s service. Again, time will tell. For today, all I ask is sufficient value (which I define as meeting my current wants and needs) at what I consider to be a fair price.
This topic was discussed in detail here:
I don’t remember if anybody suggested this or if the administrative overhead would be too high, but what if RW allowed a one time perchase per billing cycle that allowed you to buy additional data at $1 per 200MB. The user to decide the amount to be added. No data rollover.
That would address the issue of being near the end of the billing cycle and wasting most of the 1GB. Or make it $2, if necessary, to keep profits up.
Take a look at the thread @speedingcheetah linked to. Data in smaller increments wouldn’t be an equal cost reduction because the cost of data relies on “breakage” described above and in that thread. If 200MB had to be $2.50, would it still be interesting?
Yea. I actually had a few posts in that other thread with ideas very much like that.
The suggestion was more for people complaining that buying 1GB of data a day or 2 before the next billing cycle was wasteful. Making it a one time purchase per billing cycle would eliminate people just adding small chunks thru the entire cycle. Making it an add on to the 1GB and above plans would ensure RW still had enough revenue as a baseline.
I personally only use 100-200MB per month and I have no problem paying $5 for the 1st GB.
RW’s issue isn’t the $5/GB, it’s the $15 base (“entry”) price for plan with no data – this is what is costing them the market for “low data users.” If they lowered the base price to $10, they would be a lot more competitive, because $5/GB is fair. I believe they know that a major portion of their customer base uses 1GB or less each month, and the $15 base price was their attempt to maximize their income. RW is an ethical company with great customer support (albeit without telephone access), and they could own the “low data user” market if they didn’t try to maximize profits on the backs of the customers using less than 1GB/month – they are driving these customers to other providers.
$15 for unlimited talk/text it quite competitive in the market. You make the assertion that “try to maximize profits on the backs of the customers using less than 1GB/month” with absolutely no evidence. What’s your proof that the $10 price point isn’t a money losing price point? Even if the $10 price point isn’t losing money, how many support interaction can a customer have before they are costing Republic money? There aren’t a lot of credible providers out there that compete with the $20 1GB price point. Even on someone like Cricket talk/text ONLY is $25.
Mint Mobile will give you 2GB/mo for $15/mo, with Wi-Fi calling and many other “extras” – you must pay full year ($180) to get that price, but RW adds $2 to $3 dollars each month for taxes and fees, and MINT charges the same $2 to $3 dollar amount only once each year. Republic really must compete with that price, and they don’t now – if they can’t, they are going to loose a lot more customers. Lowering the base price to $10 is one way of competing because data usages above 1GB/mo will be more competitive (and hopefully attract mor customers). The market is changing, and RW must change if it wants to stay a part of it – keep in mind: RW’s “approved” phones are relatively few, compared to Mint and others.
We’ll just agree to disagree. I don’t think Republic has to compete with up-front payment plans. There are many many customers who won’t lock themselves in by paying in advance that way.
In addition, competition is far from price only. Mint offers no domestic roaming (a deal breaker for me and many others) and doesn’t offer anything similar to Republic Anywhere.
Competing on price is only one way to do things and if that’s all that matters then you’re likely right, Republic may not be the answer. If other things matter, Republic stacks up quite well to the competition.
We can certainly agree to disagree…
In doing so, I do have to say this: Competing on price alone is a sure path to bankruptcy, and RW should never do that – but ignoring price also puts RW on that path – there is an optimal/compromise point. Somebody at Republic (certainly not me) really should re-evaluate the business plan in this changing market – because, although you may not want to compete with up-front payment plans, your customers are flocking there.
Over, and Out…
I don’t have customers, I’m a customer like you. But you have no evidence for this. We don’t know if customers are flocking and if they are whether that’s to Republic, from Republic or something else entirely. I can tell you that as one of the folks that helps with tickets I answer tickets all the time from people wanting to come back from or come to Republic from Mint because of their experience there.
Largely, I disagree with the idea the MVNO’s are even attempting to compete with one another. All are really looking to peel customers away from the big 4 and maybe U.S. Cellular in certain regional markets. No doubt Republic loses customers to Mint and other MVNO’s and gains others from those sources. Let’s face it, Republic isn’t targeting any MVNO with the marketing slogan “Unlimited is unnecessary”.
I spent many years in Community banking. Our approach was similar. We weren’t particularly concerned with what the savings bank down the street was doing. We were out to take customers away from B of A, Wells Fargo, Citibank, etc.
I do think all MVNOs are attempting to “peel customers away from the big 4,” but intentionally or not, they are all competing with each other to get those customers, and to keep them once they have them. To be successful, they need to offer an attractive feature/services/price package.
In my personal experience, RW offers a unique benefit, in that they are truly WiFi first (Project Fi is not). My apartment is essentially a Faraday cage, and I get a barely detectable cell signal. I have never missed or dropped a call using RW — but Fi usually found and used the weak cell signal, then dropped the call moments later. On the road, however, things are reversed — Fi never loses the cell signal and stays connected, RW connects with every weak WiFi signal it finds and then drops it moments later. A third MVNO, Mint, seems to have solved the problem (at least in my case) because with WiFi calling enabled and set to prefer mobile (cell), it totally ignores the weak cell signal in my apartment and uses WiFi. On the road, it always latches onto the cell signal, but when there is no signal. it reliably connects to WiFi. Interestingly, Mint is the lowest cost of the three.
So, even if MVNOs don’t think they compete with each other, they do compete in their customer’s eyes — therefore, they do compete with each other, even if they don’t acknowledge it. I think they would be foolish if they misidentified their competition as “the big 4.”
Mint has its own set of caveats. You must pay for multiple months up front. You’re limited to TMO’s network (no roaming). There’s no tethering unless that’s changed since I last looked. If Mint meets your needs great but I don’t think Republic necessarily needs to match Mint’s pricing to be successful.
Regarding your issue about Republic connecting to every weak WiFi signal it finds, my Republic phones don’t behave that way. The only WiFi networks they connect to are ones I want them to.