I don't know if this illegal, but at best, it's unethical.

[BOSSY TEXAS CHICK]

k, what am i missing here? i purchased my $15.00 Staight Talk Sim right off of their website and they sent it out free 2 day shipping... Do they not do that anymore?

BTC

 

[rtshoff]

So ultimately what we need to discuss is the availability of mvnos to use with our unlocked N4s....what guarantee do we have that these sims selling on eBay will work with att.... Or that ST will be able to continue providing att on these sims or even existing customers?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Android Central Forums

 

[mmtowns]

Fwiw, I ordered an at&t microsim a week or so before the inventory shortage, but didn't activate it until last week. This seems to indicate that although ST has stopped selling AT&T sims, they're still activating them.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Android Central Forums

 

[mmtowns]

k, what am i missing here? i purchased my $15.00 Staight Talk Sim right off of their website and they sent it out free 2 day shipping... Do they not do that anymore?

BTC

Correct. ST is not currently selling AT&T sims from their website as of a few weeks ago.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Android Central Forums

 

[rtshoff]

What you likely got was a T-Mobile Sim card...which may work for you depending on your usage area...many people prefer the att network that straight talk was wholesaling up till two months ago

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Android Central Forums

 

[rtshoff]

k, what am i missing here? i purchased my $15.00 Staight Talk Sim right off of their website and they sent it out free 2 day shipping... Do they not do that anymore?

BTC

What you likely got was a T-Mobile Sim card...which may work for you depending on your usage area...many people prefer the att network that straight talk was wholesaling up till two months ago

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Android Central Forums


Sent from my Nexus 4 using Android Central Forums

 

[Jennifer Stough]

ST phones do not come with SIMS. The phones are attached to the service themselves through said phone's serial. I already looked into this.

The nokia e41 or 71 whichever one it was, came with a sim.

Sent from my Verizon Droid DNA

 

[androidluvr2]

k, what am i missing here? i purchased my $15.00 Staight Talk Sim right off of their website and they sent it out free 2 day shipping... Do they not do that anymore?

Only for the Tmobile compatible SIMs. They stopped selling them for ATT.

 

[androidluvr2]

So ultimately what we need to discuss is the availability of mvnos to use with our unlocked N4s....what guarantee do we have that these sims selling on eBay will work with att.... Or that ST will be able to continue providing att on these sims or even existing customers?

It's no contract, so there is no guarantee. For now, ST is continuing service for existing customers and allowing new activations of the existing ST ATT SIMs but no new ST ATT SIMs are being issued.

 

[androidluvr2]

The companies that own the United States' telecommunication infrastructure answer to no one.

They answer to the FCC and the DOJ.

Even if some other company wants to build a more efficient, mobile broadband network, they can't. That space is already owned. So unfortunately we are stuck with the same companies we have had for eons.

What are you talking about? Anyone can build a tower if they have land in a place that is zoned for that and lease it to a carrier. Are you talking about the spectrum? The carriers don't own the spectrum. They license it. And the license can be revoked if they don't abide by the terms and the terms can change upon renewal if Congress passes laws and/or the FCC issues rules.

Google has shown us that an iPhone-quality (I'm speaking of the iPhone's build; its solidness) smartphone doesn't have to be $700.

Google is subsidizing the Nexus 4 because selling hardware isn't how Google makes money.

Mobile broadband technology can improve faster

What are you basing that on? And please give more specifics detailing how the technology is being held back and how it can improve faster.

and the only thing in its way are a few companies with too much control of the infrastructure.

Congress can change that if they want to and you and all of us who vote can change Congress.

Those in your generation may not remember Judge Greene, but I do. Google him if you want to know who he is.

 

[whip it good]

How about if I use an analogy to another non-necessity? Let's say a famous artist, Mr X, dies. While alive he was able to get $5000 for a painting and so prices the paintings in his art gallery at $5000 each. Once he dies, an art collector realizes that Mr. X won't be producing any more paintings and buys all of the paintings in Mr. X's art gallery for $5000 each. The art collector then turns around and offers the paintings for sale for $10,000 each. Is the art collector a sinister, shady, sleazy, slimy vulture?

If you think that's bad, look at the markup on used cars like a 1967 Corvette Sting Ray Convertible.

 

[I_AM_THE_ENTIRE_INTERNET]

They answer to the FCC and the DOJ.

What are you talking about? Anyone can build a tower if they have land in a place that is zoned for that and lease it to a carrier. Are you talking about the spectrum? The carriers don't own the spectrum. They license it. And the license can be revoked if they don't abide by the terms and the terms can change upon renewal if Congress passes laws and/or the FCC issues rules.

Google is subsidizing the Nexus 4 because selling hardware isn't how Google makes money.

What are you basing that on? And please give more specifics detailing how the technology is being held back and how it can improve faster.

Congress can change that if they want to and you and all of us who vote can change Congress.

Those in your generation may not remember Judge Greene, but I do. Google him if you want to know who he is.

Look, I threw out a lot of hyperbole because I am aggravated at the situation. You are right. Even though I still think it's slimy, I understand that it is 100% legal. Just venting and I am glad this turned into a discussion about alternative MVNO. So who's ship will we jump to next? Straight Talk, as of now, uses Sprint and Verizon for CDMA and AT&T and T-Mobile for GSM. But they are no longer offering AT&T SIMs. So that either means AT&T is slowing backing out, or we're in for a long contractual dispute. Net10, I know little about.

UPDATE:. Hmm I just learned that virtually all MVNOs are owned by TracFone. Had no idea Net10, ST, and a slew of other prepaid services were owned by them.

 

[Greg C]

I understand what you're saying, but your failing to recognize the sleaziness of these people. They bought out Straight Talk's stock. Not to use them in phones, but to simply control the market through bullish capitalism. They don't need the SIM cards. It's horsesh1t.

It's bs. These losers can't get a job so they screw people over for a living.

 

[BOSSY TEXAS CHICK]

yah, mine is AT&T Straight Talk sim..got itover a year ago....wow, ty, did not know that, i guess i'll stop recommending everyone move to them....lol

BTC

 

[EthelAardvaark]

I'm amazed at this thread. Here in the UK the phone carriers happily give their SIM cards away for free. After all, they cost virtually nothing to manufacture and the only way you can use them is by spending money with them.

Good luck getting sorted.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Android Central Forums

 

[SOLGarion]

I'm amazed at this thread. Here in the UK the phone carriers happily give their SIM cards away for free. After all, they cost virtually nothing to manufacture and the only way you can use them is by spending money with them.

Good luck getting sorted.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Android Central Forums

Typically carriers give free, or nearly free, sim cards to contract customers but the off contract Piggie back carriers, MVNOs, charge for theirs. I have two theory's about this.

1) They want to make sure if you do not refill after only one month they still make reasonable cash after whatever they pay the main carrier for each activation (if they even pay per new customer or if only pay for use.) It may be that they pay 10-15 to AT&T or T-Mobile for an activation same as the end customer pays for activation on a contract phone.

2) Because they can. Why make the barrier to entry for cheap cell service free when people are willing to pay for the privilege? Kind of like why the activation charges for contract phones went from 18 to around 30-36. (Not that any activation charge should be needed for something I can do myself and cost them, for practical sake, nothing.) They upped the charge because they could and enough people just paid it. Never had to charge it but we paid it so they do. Vicious cycle really.


Sent from my Nexus 4 using Android Central Forums

 

[whip it good]

Starting with ranting on the internet then, tomorrow, contacting ST and informing them of what's going on. Maybe Wal-Mart too.

So, what did ST customer service say when you contacted them and asked why they won't sell you one for $15?

 

[zuben el genubi]

I'm not against fair profits, but a lot of today's nonsense falls under the label "piggery" even if it is legal and ethical (by today's standards)
Yes, you can change congress, but you can't change or don't know which lobby group your congresscritter is beholden to.
With broadband - the big companies have got laws passed where they have a monopoly. Even a city is forbidden to create its own broadband network.

Years ago, society, government, religion,preached moderation. If someone put out a dish of candy saying "free-take one" most people took ONE. Today first person would say they were entitled to the whole dish. This whole me, me, more, more way is contributing to the obesity epidemic on both the vendors and buyers. It's affecting other businesses in the same way.

Here's a thread about ST from XDA.
No more ATT Compatible SIM on Straight Talk - xda-developers

 

[androidluvr2]

So that either means AT&T is slowing backing out, or we're in for a long contractual dispute.

I wouldn't characterize this as a contractual dispute. What it is is a market aberration that has been eliminated.

I suspect what happened is that Google released the Nexus 4, which is a subsidized, unlocked, no-contract premium smartphone, and since T-mobile's network isn't great in many places, Nexus 4 owners flocked to ST AT&T service because they got the benefit of a subsidized high-end phone and an unlimited data contract with a carrier having a strong network at a lower monthly cost than if they had signed a contract with AT&T. And even if they signed a contract with AT&T, AT&T is no longer offering unlimited data contracts so they got something they couldn't even get by signing a contract with AT&T - unlimited data on AT&T's network - and they got it at a lower cost than a capped data AT&T contract plan.

This was a market aberration that occurred due to Google being able to sell subsidized phones because Google doesn't rely on profits from hardware sales. Rather, Google makes its profit from advertising sales and by selling a subsidized phone that runs their operating system that incorporates their search engine, which is how they make their profits on advertising sales, they generate profits. For a short time, this gave those who recognized the market aberration and acted quickly an opportunity to get all of the benefits of an AT&T contract plus unlimited data (which isn't even available from AT&T anymore) at a lower cost and without having a 2 year commitment. It was only a matter of time before AT&T realized this and eliminated this market aberration by raising the fees it charged ST.

As long as Google is going to sell subsidized GSM phones that work at the AT&T frequencies, I doubt you will be able to get AT&T low cost, no-contract, unlimited data service anymore at least as a new subscriber. And we will see how long ST can continue to provide the AT&T unlimited data plan at this price. This is Microeconomics 101.

If I were you, I would buy grandma one of the remaining $90 ST AT&T SIMs and be thankful you got it at $90 instead of at $200.

 

[androidluvr2]

Yes, you can change congress, but you can't change or don't know which lobby group your congresscritter is beholden to.

vote them out of office then.

With broadband - the big companies have got laws passed where they have a monopoly. Even a city is forbidden to create its own broadband network.

What specific laws are you referring to? What the wireless carriers have are exclusive licenses to use certain frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum to transmit signals. Cities can't build their own wireless networks because they aren't the licensees of any portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Recently frequencies freed up by the digital TV conversion were sold at auction. If a city wanted to build their own wireless network, then they could have participated in the auctions, which of course would have required them to spend lots of money and which of course is why they didn't do it.

So a carrier has a "monopoly" on a certain frequency, but the current wireless marketplace is an oligopoly not a monopoly. And the "monopoly" a carrier has on a certain frequency is of a limited duration, subject to conditions and can be revoked.

And let's keep in mind what is going on here - the issue is wireless DATA not wireless phone calls. You can get wireless phone service at a reasonable price. The federal government even has a program to give it to low-income people for free and its paid for by the fees those of us who pay for our services are charged.

Wireless data is a luxury, not a necessity. You know what it is called when people feel entitled to luxuries at an affordable price? It's called a first world problem.