T-Mobile: Finally made the jump...

[dkhmwilliams]

But you have to compare apples to apples. You can't compare a data plan capped at 2 GB per device to an unlimited one. Put another way, you have to compare a higher data limit on AT&T. 6-10 GB per device, for example. What would your AT&T plan cost if you upped your shared data to 30 GB? How about 50? Thinking ahead is fine, but you have to apply the same future point to both plans.


Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Absolutely, and I did consider that in one of my previous posts. But I have to weight the overall costs of along a switch and not just the monthly cost. Paying that much for phones up front or paying installment plans monthly can become costly. I did find out through this thread that I don't have to do the insurance which would save some cash. The reality of it is that I may not be able to switch even though I'm tempted to do it.


Sent from my iPhone 5S. The "S" is for sexy.

 

[dkhmwilliams]

If your looking ahead then up the price for your current plan as well.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

The next jump is another $40 for 5 more GBs.


Sent from my iPhone 5S. The "S" is for sexy.

 

[Old Stoneface]

Market demand is most often created by wants, so to me, this argument as to whether something is a necessity or luxury in this context is pointless.
...
If people want something, will they pay a high price if no alternatives are available? Yes. But it is also true that as soon as someone in the market begins to provide a cheaper alternative, consumers will vote with their dollars by moving (cord-cutting, etc.).

What is pointless is arguing tautologies. Of course people will pay less if they have the opportunity. The point I'm arguing is the "they're charging too much" assertion. In whose opinion?

My point is simple: In a (more-or-less) free market, sellers will generally attempt to maximize profits. If they can do so by charging more, they'll charge more. Arguing "they're charging too much," when people will obviously pay for it, is silly.

And it became obsolete because of the ubiquity of cell phones which began to offer nationwide long distance as well as companies like Vonage that offered VoIP services at the fraction of the cost of traditional long distance.

Again: You're countering a point I did not make. I was writing about the companies that used to provide those services, and that were at the top of their food chain. These were companies that should have dominated the newer technologies. Particularly AT&T. They ended-up failing for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was they essentially ended-up selling what had been their major product at a loss.

I don't like to get in flame wars on the interwebs but....

People like you **** me off. You tell other people that the way they are spending money is stupid. You have no place criticizing the way I spend money and putting down my argument that cell companies are overcharging as if I was a spoiled brat. I wasn't complaining. I was stating that cell companies overcharge. Period.

I hated the prices I was being charged but as I wanted a smartphone I didn't have a choice.

You can be annoyed all you want. You can complain wireless and other providers are overcharging, in your opinion, all that you want. None of that changes two facts: 1. You paid it, therefor they were successful at charging what the market would bear. 2. By your own admission: You wanted it. You did not need it. Here is the difference between "want" and "need": People in the U.S. north that have been paying 50% more for propane gas, and are facing prices three times what they were paying: Those people need that propane gas. Otherwise they freeze.

Lastly: I did not call you "stupid." I said the prices you were paying for wireless services were stupidly high. There is a difference. If I had written, instead, that the prices were "ridiculously high," would you have assumed I was calling you ridiculous? "Insanely high," to mean you were insane?

 

[yfan]

My point is simple: In a (more-or-less) free market, sellers will generally attempt to maximize profits. If they can do so by charging more, they'll charge more. Arguing "they're charging too much," when people will obviously pay for it, is silly.

No. Just because people will obviously pay for it doesn't mean they can't also believe they're paying too much. People can choose to pay too much in the absence of attractive alternatives. That doesn't mean that they don't have the right to complain.

Again: You're countering a point I did not make. I was writing about the companies that used to provide those services, and that were at the top of their food chain. These were companies that should have dominated the newer technologies. Particularly AT&T. They ended-up failing for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was they essentially ended-up selling what had been their major product at a loss.

Actually, you're trying to change the subject now. All of this originated from you trying to counter my point that price competition is good for consumers. I never said anything about it being good for companies, and I couldn't care less if it is or is not. If you intended to counter my point that it's good for consumers with the idea it may not be good for companies, you're the one that is answering a strawman.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[dan1431]

In my case T-Mobile is less expensive, but trying to get service from them was like pulling teeth, in fact it was so painful I walked out of the store fairly perturbed.

I own a Nexus 5 (perfectly happy with it) and just wanted a SIM and service provisioned on said SIM. I did not want any ETFs paid nor a new phone, just a SIM and service.

The sales person kept telling me that I had to get a phone and then after some push back said I could return the phone a day later.

Then I said that I didn't want to deal with that sort of headache and he said how about trading in your Nexus 5 for another Nexus 5 to which I questioned why would I want to do that.

He then said let me talk to someone and after a few minutes he came back and said that his Mgr said that due to overwhelming demand for T-Mobile service he could not just give me a SIM and service and that if I wanted service today I would have to get a new phone. I asked to speak with his Mgr and he said that the Mgr just stepped out to lunch (how convenient).

I was getting annoyed at this point and said, listen either give me a SIM and service or I am leaving and his response really angered me, "don't let the door hit you on the way out".

I got up, turned around and left and for a split second thought of going back in and demanding to have the Mgr call me, but figured that could lead to trouble and just left.

Legere maybe trying to put a new face on T-Mobile but if they don't fix their front line people what is the point.

Dan

Posted via Android Central App

 

[Old Stoneface]

No. Just because people will obviously pay for it doesn't mean they can't also believe they're paying too much.

Didn't say it did. Said "they're charging what they've found the market would bear." Since VZW and "at&t," at least, are making money hand-over-fist, the proof of that assertion is self-evident, is it not?

People can choose to pay too much in the absence of attractive alternatives. That doesn't mean that they don't have the right to complain.

Show me where I said they didn't. I will say, however, that doing so, when it's a want, rather than a need, is rather like going outside in the rain and then complaining you got wet.

Actually, you're trying to change the subject now. All of this originated from you trying to counter my point that price competition is good for consumers. I never said anything about it being good for companies, and I couldn't care less if it is or is not. If you intended to counter my point that it's good for consumers with the idea it may not be good for companies, you're the one that is answering a strawman.

And I maintain that's not necessarily true. It's called an "opinion." My opion is that companies competing on price alone is not always good for consumers. I maintain that's especially the case when price-undercutting eventually drives overall quality down. That was, and remains, my point.

We've beat this one pretty much to death. You may have the last word, if you wish. I leave you with this...

"There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price only are this man's lawful prey." -- John Ruskin (1819-1900)

 

[Almeuit]

Dan that can happen anywhere though. I'd just try another store.. Some sales people are very shady and want commission or they won't do anything. I had a Sprint store (when I had them) tell me I am not allowed to fully buy devices.. Not just the one I wanted.. He said it's not allowed.

So some people are scum.. That sales person is one of them.

Sent from my T-Mobile Note 3 using AC Forums.

 

[yfan]

Didn't say it did. Said "they're charging what they've found the market would bear." Since VZW and "at&t," at least, are making money hand-over-fist, the proof of that assertion is self-evident, is it not?

Right, but then you refuse to concede the reverse, which is that consumers will take advantage of whatever the market will offer, when it offers things for less money. You are going around beating up on people for complaining about AT&T and Verizon's price, and trying to undermine that complaint because those people may have paid that price in the absence of an adequate alternative. That IS essentially saying to them "You bought it before, therefore quit complaining now."

I will say, however, that doing so, when it's a want, rather than a need, is rather like going outside in the rain and then complaining you got wet.

Again, market economics is mostly based on wants and not needs (principle of scarcity is based on the idea that there isn't enough to meet everybody's *wants*, not *needs*). What you are not accounting for is that people prioritize their wants. If I want both a smart phone *and* Google Music style streaming music access, but I don't have the money for both, I might prioritize smart phone service and choose to go without streaming music. When the price of smart phone service drops (by the virtue of T-mobile introducing fierce price competition in the market), I may be able to afford both.

And yes, people go out in the snow and in the rain all the time to get to somewhere they did not necessarily need to go and complain that they got rained on or snowed on. It could be because they didn't want to miss their family Christmas or Thanksgiving party. It could be because they didn't want to be late for their Valentine's date. No one needs to be at any one of those things - if they don't go, they'll still live. But people do. Because they want to. And if it rains while they go, they also complain about the rain. There is absolutely nothing problematic about that.

And I maintain that's not necessarily true. It's called an "opinion." My opion is that companies competing on price alone is not always good for consumers. I maintain that's especially the case when price-undercutting eventually drives overall quality down. That was, and remains, my point.

No one said it's always good. I said it's almost always good for consumers. At any rate, you have yet to present evidence of a case where price competition hurt the consumer - even on quality of service (the airline example doesn't work - you can pay more and buy a first class seat if you want).

The problem with your quote is that it assumes - and by extension you assume - that cheaper is necessarily worse. You haven't made any evidence-based case for that either, in any industry, let alone the relevant one being discussed here: the smart phone mobile services industry.

 

[Almeuit]

It's good for AT&T customers right now.. They can threaten to leave (even if they aren't) and get money off the bill lol.

http://bgr.com/2014/01/29/att-bill-discount-how-to-guide-shrink-bill/

Sent from my T-Mobile Note 3 using AC Forums.

 

[sMt73]

I ported my wife and son from VZW to T-Mobile in November. I had to pay the ETF on both their lines (Totaled about $150.00) and myself from AT&T. VZW after taxes was $176 a month, and AT&T was $108.00 after Taxes. We all three have new phones, and 2.5GB of service, and iPad AIR for the wife. My bill with EIP & taxes etc totals $216 a month. That is $68.00 a month cheaper, we have more data than we did with VZW, and the wife has an iPad air to boot. Wish I would have waited till January to port them over, would have saved $150.00...

 

[Almeuit]

I ported my wife and son from VZW to T-Mobile in November. I had to pay the ETF on both their lines (Totaled about $150.00) and myself from AT&T. VZW after taxes was $176 a month, and AT&T was $108.00 after Taxes. We all three have new phones, and 2.5GB of service, and iPad AIR for the wife. My bill with EIP & taxes etc totals $216 a month. That is $68.00 a month cheaper, we have more data than we did with VZW, and the wife has an iPad air to boot. Wish I would have waited till January to port them over, would have saved $150.00...

They should reimburse you for the ETF. Just show them that you paid for it.

Sent from my T-Mobile Note 3 using AC Forums.

 

[sMt73]

They should reimburse you for the ETF. Just show them that you paid for it.

Sent from my T-Mobile Note 3 using AC Forums.

Problem is, I do not have the phones anymore to trade in to qualify.

 

[21stNow]

Everyone keeps saying that they are a lot cheaper, but when doing the math, I'm not coming out that way. Maybe I'm missing something. Currrently, I have five lines with AT&T, this includes four phones and one iPad. I have 10 GBs of data that we share. My last bill, with a 17 percent corporate discount was $320. Doing the math with T-Mobile, with 5 lines and installment plans for each device it comes to:

First phone = unlimited everything $70 + $25 installment + $10 insurance (which I was told was mandatory)
Second phone = unlimited everything $50 + $25 installment + $10 insurance
Third phone = unlimited everything $30 + $25 installment + $10 insurance
Fourth phone = unlimited everything $30 + $25 installment + $10 insurance
Tablet = data $15 + $25 installment + $10 insurance

This totals $365 before taxes. I don't get a corporate discount with T-Mobile and it also is considering that I paid for the phones that I now have at the subsidized pricing, which I wouldn't be paying up front (other than paying the taxes on the five devices). I will also be getting unlimited data too with T-Mobile, but we don't use our 10 GB now. When I saw the advertisement on tv I really was intrigued by it, but it doesn't seem to be that great of a deal. Anybody see any flaws in my logic?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

T-Mobile doesn't always come out cheaper, especially when you qualify for a discount with AT&T but not with T-Mobile. This is my situation, along with not needing carrier features like text messaging, and I came out cheaper with AT&T than with T-Mobile.

T-Mobile was not offering unlimited.. unthrottled.. Data 4 years ago. I didn't count unlimited data as... You use this much then bam dial up service speeds.

Now they have full unlimited plans and also the pay for your device.. So marketing definitely helped but the plans were not the same..

Sent from my T-Mobile Note 3 using AC Forums.

The unlimited data plan that I have has the same language in the terms and conditions that the current unlimited data plan has. They both have language that they can throttle you after 5GB have been used. I never used 5GB on that line within one month, so I don't know if they actually throttled it. I have heard from many users of the current plan that it is not throttled, but T-Mobile reserves the right to do so.

 

[oberkc]

A lot of folks are looking at the cost of plans, and that is great. I moved from Verizon to Tmobile for the singular purpose of saving money.

Like a few here, one of the things I find less questioned, but just as questionable, is the cost of phones. My theory is that the use of subsidized phones has made most of us desensitized to the cost of a phone. $700...are you kidding me!? For a phone? I believe the prices of phones are artificially high because of the same reason that plans are high: because they can be; ie the market supports it. We just shrug it off, thinking that it is just part of the plan, so who cares how much the phone costs.

While this does not help immediately, I think we will soon see the cost of phones come down as competition kicks in and more folks are bringing their own devices to the carrier and choosing phones based partly on price. The nexus 4/5 and some of the moto devices are examples of this, in my mind, and more will come.

 

[Almeuit]

T-Mobile doesn't always come out cheaper, especially when you qualify for a discount with AT&T but not with T-Mobile. This is my situation, along with not needing carrier features like text messaging, and I came out cheaper with AT&T than with T-Mobile.



The unlimited data plan that I have has the same language in the terms and conditions that the current unlimited data plan has. They both have language that they can throttle you after 5GB have been used. I never used 5GB on that line within one month, so I don't know if they actually throttled it. I have heard from many users of the current plan that it is not throttled, but T-Mobile reserves the right to do so.

The right and doing it are two different things. ANY network has the right to throttle.. But them doing it is different.

If you're on an old unlimited they straight say they WILL throttle at 5 GB. I hit 96 GB the other month and 52 the other.. Nothing.

Again you're just getting into technicalities if you're just saying they have the right.. Since any wireless or wired network ISP has the right.. But it's different from them saying in the plan "at 5 GB you will be throttled".

Sent from my T-Mobile Note 3 using AC Forums.

 

[goherd#AC]

We work in the Tech Center and the coverage is not too bad. 2-3 bars the most. We live in Parker which is about 10-15 minutes south of Denver and the coverage is better. Data speeds are crazy fast though. Even faster than my Century Link DSL speeds. Haven't had a drop call yet.

The Nexus 5 is so fast and responsive. Wife loves it as well. Happy wife=Happy life!

I live in Broomfield and in Boulder all the time service is great. Phone will switch to another carrier when out of coverage area. One thing I noticed with the N5 is the cell signal indicator is not usually correct. Will show lower cell signal but the signal% is just as strong as the wife's G2. So far happy with T-Mobile.

 

[JHBThree]

T-Mobile was not offering unlimited.. unthrottled.. Data 4 years ago. I didn't count unlimited data as... You use this much then bam dial up service speeds.

Now they have full unlimited plans and also the pay for your device.. So marketing definitely helped but the plans were not the same..

Sent from my T-Mobile Note 3 using AC Forums.

Just a correction, because yes they were. I had unlimited, unthrottled data on t-mobile in 2010. At that point it cost as much as Verizon though, and their coverage was significantly worse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Almeuit]

Just a correction, because yes they were. I had unlimited, unthrottled data on t-mobile in 2010. At that point it cost as much as Verizon though, and their coverage was significantly worse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think so.. Part of the "uncarrier" plan was to change to truly unlimited data. Since the unlimited before had the 5 GB throttle limit like the 500MB/2.5 GB plans of today.

Either that or I'm mistaken.. Was pretty sure that's how it was because I was with Sprint for 1 year and wanted to go to T-Mobile but always saw that 5 GB throttle at the bottom of the commercials.. Now it doesn't.

Sent from my T-Mobile Note 3 using AC Forums.

 

[Almeuit]

Ah Yep 2 years ago.. So I thought only a year.. Man time flies.

Either way.. Wasn't 4 years ago .

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/t-mobile-gets-unlimited-data-plans-no-speed-throttling-sept-958226

http://venturebeat.com/2012/08/22/t-mobile-data-plan-no-throttling/

Sent from my T-Mobile Note 3 using AC Forums.

 

[21stNow]

Ah Yep 2 years ago.. So I thought only a year.. Man time flies.

Either way.. Wasn't 4 years ago .

T-mobile gets unlimited data plans with no speed throttling on Sept. 5 - NBC News.com

T-Mobile adds 'truly unlimited' data plan that won't throttle you | VentureBeat | Mobile | by Sean Ludwig

Sent from my T-Mobile Note 3 using AC Forums.

As JHBThree has already pointed out, there was an unlimited plan that was offered by T-Mobile that was the same was the one that is offered today. I used the four-year timeframe because it was offered before I joined T-Mobile 3.5 years ago. The unlimited data plan that was throttled at 5GB outright came in summer of 2011.