T-Mobile Uncarrier?

[blairharrington]

I agree with this. Makes me wonder how t-mobile will market these plans when the general public in the US just doesn't understand this concept.



I don't even know how to explain it any better to you. The carrier takes a hit? I don't think ATT/VZW are that nice to do that. They are ripping you off and you don't even realize it. Look at how contract plans/cell phone plans work around the world anywhere except the US/Canada and then get back to me.

And $82 is cheap? I don't think you realize most people before smartphones came around paid $30-40 for cell service with minutes/texts. I pay $42/mo on prepaid for unlimited talk, text, and 2GB of data for an iPhone. How is it you are paying double what I am paying? What does that extra $40 go to? Oh yeah, subsidizing your phone.

Do you honestly not realize that the carrier pays more for the device than the consumer? Seriously?

I had a dumb phone before a feature phone. You are paying for data. The money is essentially a wash when it comes to minutes and texts compared to the good old days. Let me guess, you have Straight Talk? A service that had serious data failures last August. A MVDO service that connects first to Chicago for data? A service whose customer support is all but a Facebook page. No direct MMS. And no LTE to boot.

The extra $40 I pay doesn't go to subsidizing my phone. You are idiot. I'd be paying the same amount if I purchased the phone unlocked. For that extra money I get LTE and I have a store with reps that can help me desired. Not to mention I don't currently have a FAN account but may in the future. Which means my monthly bill will most likely be close to $60 by this fall when I switch jobs.

If Straight Talk works for you, so be it. But stop spewing nonsense.

 

[basslover1]

And $82 is cheap? I don't think you realize most people before smartphones came around paid $30-40 for cell service with minutes/texts. I pay $42/mo on prepaid for unlimited talk, text, and 2GB of data for an iPhone. How is it you are paying double what I am paying? What does that extra $40 go to? Oh yeah, subsidizing your phone.

I was thinking the same thing. I pay 90 a month for two lines, 1000 shared mins, unlimited texts with 2GB of data for me and 200mb for the other line. That also includes a 15 dollar a month charge for one of the phones so when I pay that off it'll be 75.

I was paying 120 at Verizon for two lines 900 mins, 500 texts per line, and unlimited data on one line, nothing on the other.

I love T-mobile, seriously I've never really been enamored by a phone carrier (I've had all of them) and T-Mo is seriously awesome and they're only going to get better.

 

[blairharrington]

Maybe you should be comparing prices of ATTs unlimited talk/text plans to T-mobile. The T-mobile plans have unlimited. And what happens when t-mobile finishes their LTE rollout? Your argument won't hold up anymore.

Unlimited talk on ATT is $70/mo, bringing total bill to $120/month for unlimited talk, text, and 3GB of data. Total for 2 years is $3,116 for unlimited talk, text, 3GB of data, $36 activation fee, and $200 for an iPhone.

Difference in price $1,177.

Not to mention lots of people don't upgrade their phones every 3 years. During year 3, the savings would be even more on t-mobile since you won't be paying the $20/mo for the month anymore. ATT, nope still paying the same monthly fee.

If you want unlimited data then yes, T-Mobile is the better option. Most consumers don't use more than 2 GB of data per month. This is a fact.

I'm on the verge of putting you on the ignore list. You are just reaching right now to try to back up T-Mobile. I find my desire to respond to you to seriously be fading. You'll try again at this point to back up yourself. You are paying more for that T-Mobile phone. You the consumer must decide if the unlimited data is worth it to you or not. That's the only reason I'd suggest T-Mobile to someone else. To get that unlimited data. Otherwise it just isn't huge savings.

 

[ImDonly1]

If you want unlimited data then yes, T-Mobile is the better option. Most consumers don't use more than 2 GB of data per month. This is a fact.

I'm on the verge of putting you on the ignore list. You are just reaching right now to try to back up T-Mobile. I find my desire to respond to you to seriously be fading. You'll try again at this point to back up yourself. You are paying more for that T-Mobile phone. You the consumer must decide if the unlimited data is worth it to you or not. That's the only reason I'd suggest T-Mobile to someone else. To get that unlimited data. Otherwise it just isn't huge savings.

I didn't say unlimited data, I said unlimited talk/text. You weren't even comparing similar plans.
If you bothered reading further I said the plans includes unlimited talk, text, and 2.5 GB data on t-mobile. Unlimited talk, text, and 3GB of data on ATT. That's not a fair comparison? You were comparing the unlimited t-mobile plan to 450 minute ATT plan and you call that an OK comparison? Did you go and lookup how cellphone plans work outside of the US? Or are you just going to keep saying the same stuff after everyone proves you wrong?

You either work for ATT/VZW or are just stupid.

 

[Dulanic]

More nonsense.

Text pricing has gone up because consumers have countless ways to side step using a carrier's SMS/MMS methods. (iMessage, WhatsApp, etc.)

Carriers make a profit soon after you start paying your monthly bill. Like I said before, they take the hit up front but are protected by the ETF. The numbers you are throwing out make no sense. It's as simple as this. AT&T for example pays Apple more for each iPhone then you the consumer pay to purchase it from AT&T on contract. Soon after they make their money and then some off you from the monthly service they provide. End of story. With T-Mobile all you are doing is paying off a phone over a 2 year period. And in that scenario you are actually paying more for your phone in the long run.

And yet you still ignore the fact their service and device over 2 years is still cheaper and it becomes cheaper after the 2 years.

It isn't about device or service cost it's about total cost of device and service.

 

[blackangst1]

I didn't say unlimited data, I said unlimited talk/text. You weren't even comparing similar plans.
If you bothered reading further I said the plans includes unlimited talk, text, and 2.5 GB data on t-mobile. Unlimited talk, text, and 3GB of data on ATT. That's not a fair comparison? You were comparing the unlimited t-mobile plan to 450 minute ATT plan and you call that an OK comparison? Did you go and lookup how cellphone plans work outside of the US? Or are you just going to keep saying the same stuff after everyone proves you wrong?

You either work for ATT/VZW or are just stupid.

This.

 

[blairharrington]

I didn't say unlimited data, I said unlimited talk/text. You weren't even comparing similar plans.
If you bothered reading further I said the plans includes unlimited talk, text, and 2.5 GB data on t-mobile. Unlimited talk, text, and 3GB of data on ATT. That's not a fair comparison? You were comparing the unlimited t-mobile plan to 450 minute ATT plan and you call that an OK comparison? Did you go and lookup how cellphone plans work outside of the US? Or are you just going to keep saying the same stuff after everyone proves you wrong?

You either work for ATT/VZW or are just stupid.

Do you seriously need unlimited talk? I honestly feel like you are coming up with scenarios at this point. Most consumers don't need more than 450 minutes. That's why the focus of these plans tend to be on data. So yes, assuming you need unlimited data or minutes, then T-Mobile is a good choice. But again that's a niche group.

I don't work for any carrier. I'm a writer. I'm not stupid. I feel very confident in betting I'm way smarter than you.

 

[blairharrington]

And yet you still ignore the fact their service and device over 2 years is still cheaper and it becomes cheaper after the 2 years.

It isn't about device or service cost it's about total cost of device and service.

You end up paying more for the phone in the end versus the subsidized price! Do you seriously not understand that???????????


T-Mobile is not big savings unless you must have unlimited talk or data. Some of you are so dense.

 

[Dulanic]

You end up paying more for the phone in the end versus the subsidized price! Do you seriously not understand that???????????


T-Mobile is not big savings unless you must have unlimited talk or data. Some of you are so fucking dense.

Actually your dense. What reasonable reason would I have to pick att for more money and less service. Go into family plan it's even larger savings. And after 24 months the savings are even more.

Your argument is that 1 is more than 2. Basic math says your wrong. If you want to argue coverage that's a different story, though Tmobile does roam on AT&T. However, that hasn't been your argument. You're argument has been it doesn't save money. That argument is dead wrong.

 

[blairharrington]

Actually your fucking dense. What reasonable reason would I have to pick att for more money and less service. Go into family plan it's even larger savings. And after 24 months the savings are even more.

Your argument is that 1 is more than 2. Basic math says your wrong. If you want to argue coverage that's a different story, though Tmobile does roam on AT&T. However, that hasn't been your argument. You're argument has been it doesn't save money. That argument is dead wrong.

That has never been my argument. Thanks for making stuff up .

You don't save more after 24 months. Your monthly bill becomes less because you have now officially paid more for your phone than you would have if you had purchased a subsidized phone. Again, this is a fact.

I've already stated that the true savings comes if you need (again NEED) unlimited talk and/or data. Most consumers don't need unlimited talk and data.

You are paying full price for a phone on T-mobile. Get that fact through your think skull. Only one can decide if that unlimited data and minutes are worthy that premium.

Family plans is another story entirely. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about single lines.

Savings are more after 2 years? Chances are you'll want a new phone after 24 months.

 

[dagamer34]

That has never been my fucking argument. Thanks for making shit up dickhead.

You don't save more after 24 months. Your monthly bill becomes less because you have now officially paid more for your phone than you would have if you had purchased a subsidized phone. Again, this is a fact.

I've already stated that the true savings comes if you need (again NEED) unlimited talk and/or data. Most consumers don't need unlimited talk and data.

You are paying full price for a phone on T-mobile. Get that fact through your think skull. Only one can decide if that unlimited data and minutes are worthy that premium.

Family plans is another story entirely. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about single lines.

Savings are more after 2 years? Chances are you'll want a new phone after 24 months.

Oy, you keep thinking that only T-Mobile forces you to pay for the full cost of the phone. Verizon, AT&T and Sprint do as well over time, and then some.

 

[blairharrington]

Oy, you keep thinking that only T-Mobile forces you to pay for the full cost of the phone. Verizon, AT&T and Sprint do as well over time, and then some.

No they don't! You don't end up paying full price for the phone under contract. They make their money back (and more) in monthly service. The ETF is their safety net so you don't get a phone on the cheap.

 

[blairharrington]

My desire to continue in this thread is over.

I'm happy T-Mobile didn't merge with AT&T. Competition in the end benefits the consumer.

I think anyone looking for unlimited data or voice or both should consider T-Mobile.

When it comes to (not) unlimited plans the savings are still there compared to the other big 3 but they aren't as large as some are making it out to be. You also are paying full price for your phone no matter what in the end and you need to do the math to figure out if it's worth it or not.

We haven't even discussed the Washington attorney general going after T-Mobile's new marketing and how T-Mobile has already conceded the AG claims. I'll leave this quote from a TechHive article 3 days ago regarding this turn of events as I exit this thread.

"One difference between T-Mobile's term-purchase program and conventional contracts is that after making hardware payments for 24 months, T-Mobile customers can pay less per month if they keep using the same phone. However, for customers who want to cancel service early, the "balloon" payment for the rest of the phone's cost may be even higher than a conventional early termination fee, Sellis said."

 

[Inspector Jihad]

can we ban this guy for being an idiot?

 

[Jynxed]

My desire to continue in this thread is over.

I'm happy T-Mobile didn't merge with AT&T. Competition in the end benefits the consumer.

I think anyone looking for unlimited data or voice or both should consider T-Mobile.

When it comes to (not) unlimited plans the savings are still there compared to the other big 3 but they aren't as large as some are making it out to be. You also are paying full price for your phone no matter what in the end and you need to do the math to figure out if it's worth it or not.

We haven't even discussed the Washington attorney general going after T-Mobile's new marketing and how T-Mobile has already conceded the AG claims. I'll leave this quote from a TechHive article 3 days ago regarding this turn of events as I exit this thread.

"One difference between T-Mobile's term-purchase program and conventional contracts is that after making hardware payments for 24 months, T-Mobile customers can pay less per month if they keep using the same phone. However, for customers who want to cancel service early, the "balloon" payment for the rest of the phone's cost may be even higher than a conventional early termination fee, Sellis said."

Wow you've been retardedly wrong this whole time.

 

[saratoga172]

No they don't! You don't end up paying full price for the phone under contract. They make their money back (and more) in monthly service. The ETF is their safety net so you don't fuck them over by getting a phone on the cheap.

I think what you're missing is that the big carriers have built the cost of the phone being subsidized into their monthly plan pricing. So yes you are not technically paying for the phone by definition, but as an indirect cost that is rolled into your monthly plan.

If they didn't your plan would be 20-30 cheaper each month. Why do you think plan prices have ballooned? Because phone prices have gone up and carriers are seeing an opportunity to make even more money.

Having said all that, in America it makes more sense to subsidize your phone rather than paying outright assuming you'll be with the carrier for two years. It's the way carriers have people thinking. Which really is how they have you thinking.

 

[blairharrington]

I think what you're missing is that the big carriers have built the cost of the phone being subsidized into their monthly plan pricing. So yes you are not technically paying for the phone by definition, but as an indirect cost that is rolled into your monthly plan.

If they didn't your plan would be 20-30 cheaper each month. Why do you think plan prices have ballooned? Because phone prices have gone up and carriers are seeing an opportunity to make even more money.

Having said all that, in America it makes more sense to subsidize your phone rather than paying outright assuming you'll be with the carrier for two years. It's the way carriers have people thinking. Which really is how they have you thinking.

I don't agree. There is no indirect cost involved. The carrier makes their money from their service. The service you are contractually obligated to pay for or face a penalty.

Our plans otherwise would be $20 - $30 cheaper? What I'm paying for now is data. Essentially I now pay $30 more a month with a smartphone versus my feature phone back in 2007. That amounts to a dollar a day to have the luxury of browsing the web on my phone. That seems fair to me.

It's not about carriers having me or anybody thinking a certain way. Data costs the carriers money to provide such a service. The only reason unlocked phones are so expensive is directly correlated with the prices that carriers pay the OEM's to provide the phones to consumer in the first place.

If anybody wants to debate this with me, you can reach me via DM. I already stated earlier that I have no desire to continue in this thread. Nothing I've stated prior is incorrect. To the people insulting me for no reason, you are pathetic.

 

[Oyeve]

What's this thread about again?

 

[bearxor]

What's this thread about again?

I dunno.

 

[blackangst1]

I dunno.

Its about blairharrington trying convince us that carriers get less for phones from us on subsidized plans than purchasing outright.

 

[lupi]

I will say, it greatly depends on the plan you currently have, how many are on your plan, and how often you upgrade. It is virtually impossible to definitavely state that the new tmobile non-contract contract plans are a (much) cheaper way to go. I've also seen several tech reviews that contain such statements. Recent financial reports seem to have the subscriber base going away at an increased rate with these new plans coming out, so the time to see if it's an effective strategy may be sooner than later.

 

[Owls]

I will say, it greatly depends on the plan you currently have, how many are on your plan, and how often you upgrade. It is virtually impossible to definitavely state that the new tmobile non-contract contract plans are a (much) cheaper way to go. I've also seen several tech reviews that contain such statements. Recent financial reports seem to have the subscriber base going away at an increased rate with these new plans coming out, so the time to see if it's an effective strategy may be sooner than later.

I like how you say that Tmo is losing subs without actually posting any factual information while pretending to know what you are talking about.

The only sub loss they posted was from Q3 of last year.

Good job, slick.

 

[blackangst1]

I will say, it greatly depends on the plan you currently have, how many are on your plan, and how often you upgrade. It is virtually impossible to definitavely state that the new tmobile non-contract contract plans are a (much) cheaper way to go. I've also seen several tech reviews that contain such statements. Recent financial reports seem to have the subscriber base going away at an increased rate with these new plans coming out, so the time to see if it's an effective strategy may be sooner than later.

When you say "Recent financial reports seem to have the subscriber base going away at an increased rate" how do you define recent? Because you certainly arent talking about 4thQ 2012 or 1stQ 2013....

 

[Red Storm]

T-Mobile really needs to improve their coverage. They're speeds are already good but their lack of coverage is the one and only reason why I can't even consider them.

 

[dagamer34]

No they don't! You don't end up paying full price for the phone under contract. They make their money back (and more) in monthly service. The ETF is their safety net so you don't fuck them over by getting a phone on the cheap.

You don't think the monthly cost of service builds in the price of a subsidy (~$20/month)?

If it does, then yes, at the end of a 2-year contract, you've essentially paid more for the phone with the other 3 carriers than on T-Mobile.

If not, then you really think the carrier subsidizes phones to the extent that the carrier loses money when subsidizing a phone? That's just bad business practice.

Again, it really doesn't matter where they make up their money to pay for that $600 when you only pay $200 for. At some point during your contract (not at the end of it), the phone has been paid off which is why they let you upgrade to a new phone early. If that were not true and the phone had not been paid off yet, they would be losing money from early upgrades. Not sound business sense.

It's pretty obvious that no one else is taking your side of the argument. Perhaps you should re-evaluate why that is.