Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 132

Thread: T-Mobile three new Un-Carrier moves

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    225
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post
    First, let's clear up your "nine states" misunderstanding...

    "Nine states" have NOT dropped out of the lawsuit, only the two that settled with T-Mo have (Mississippi and Colorado.)

    The "nine states" you are probably referring to are the nine that have joined the Dept. of Justice settlement (unlike the FCC who rubber-stamped the merger, the DOJ was initially against it until they negotiated the offer for new T-Mo to divest Boost and prop DISH up as a replacement 4th national carrier.)

    The states suing to block the merger (now fifteen that MS and CO settled) are:

    New York, California, District of Columbia, Oregon, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Texas.

    The nine supporting the DOJ settlement are:

    Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma and South Dakota.


    As to the "crickets" replying to your "questions", perhaps we might ask you to prove your claim that the merger *won't* cause these "dire predictions" from happening. Plenty of economists seem to think this is a bad idea, ( points out what a sham the DOJ's "solution" of propping up DISH as the replacement for Sprint as a 4th competitor is) but what do experts know, when a bunch of armchair hobbyists on HoFo probably know better?

    But while we wait for Dec. 9th and hear what NY and California have to say about it, you could read this Verge piece for a general idea of how pretty much every merger ever works out:
    https://www.theverge.com/platform/am...erage-promises

    But seriously, how do you honestly expect two companies to merge and not have redundant jobs eliminated? Redundant customer service centers, redundant retail stores, redundant techs, etc. What tech merger *ever* increased jobs and lowered pricing?

    Sure, short term there will be a lot of work available to consolidate the two networks, integrate systems, etc., but eventually, New T-Mo will be streamlined and need fewer employees than the two separate companies do.

    And this idea that Sprint is a dead man walking is silly. Sprint has a TON of valuation and assets to p*ss through before they hit the point of no return.

    T-Mo was in as bad if not worse shape than Sprint it's today prior to their failed merger attempt with AT&T at the start of the decade. A few billion dollars of cash plus some roaming coverage from AT&T (from a penalty clause triggered by the merger failing) and new leadership under Legere turned T-Mo around. There's no reason some cash and better leadership couldn't fix Sprint too. The narrative that Sprint is a year or two from collapse is being spun by T-Mo and Sprint* to reinforce the idea that the merger is necessary.

    (*Of course, Sprint is talking out of both sides of their mouth. To the Feds they claim they're in trouble, to investors they claim while the merger would be preferable, they'll be just fine without it.)

    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
    Tmobile was no where near as bad of position as sprint during its merger with ATT financially. Sure business wasn't going well but their finances were no where in dire problematic situation as sprint right now. Not to mention tmobile at the time wasn't bleeding huge amounts of money quarter to quarter like sprint is right now. They were bleeding, but no where to the scale as sprint is. Its interesting how you suggest some cash with leadership can fix sprint, how much cash? 30B debt plus network costs to match tmobile in coverage? Oh I'm certain some dumb investors will write a check right away to fix this up disregarding long history of non stop disappointment. I'm sure these investors will see return on their investment, not in their lifetime if sprint survives even with solid leadership.

    Your arguments are weak at best, many economist oppose the deal as much as many are pro deal. Same can be said for anti merger hofo armchair experts that hold the position of merger bad, no merger good. Please get off your high horse because your anti merger side is not a better alternative than the pro merger side. You guys parade the same nonsense with job losses this competition that with cherry picked examples that favor your cause.

    In addition, listing on examples where merger goes bad (with an example listing sprint, great example, totally no bias with this dumpster fire of a company) is a joke. When Sirius and XM merged back 07 everyone was screaming that it would cause subscription hikes with 11 states urging FCC to impose heavy restrictions on the merger (which never happened because the demands were outrageous) and the resulting company today is stronger than ever. Subscription hikes did not take place, prices remained flat and you get more programing for your dollar but that depends on what package you pick. Did job losses take place? Yep, and that's necessary. If I got a business that's failing you bet I'd tell redundant staff to clean their desks out because its either 10% of the workforce or 100% of the workforce down the line if nothing is done.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,806
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post
    But seriously, how do you honestly expect two companies to merge and not have redundant jobs eliminated? Redundant customer service centers, redundant retail stores, redundant techs, etc. What tech merger *ever* increased jobs and lowered pricing?
    I hope they eliminate every redundant job they can. Of course they need to streamline the operation, take the extra proceeds and invest in the network so they can better compete on the same scale as AT&T and Verizon. Both T-Mobile & Sprint have higher fixed costs per customer and this means they have less resources to compete.

    Of course the anti-TMobile crew and those who support AT&T and Verizon want to protect the duopoly from such competition. And the AG lawsuits are AT&T's and Verizon's last ditch effort to stop what they failed to stop with the FCC and the DOJ.

    And this idea that Sprint is a dead man walking is silly. Sprint has a TON of valuation and assets to p*ss through before they hit the point of no return.
    You clearly can't read a balance sheet if you believe that. You also don't understand simple debt servicing and the burden Sprint's long-term debt puts on their cash flow. But the anti-merger folks throw out this false narrative that Sprint is in great shape. Financial analysts state their outlook is bearish. Really, the stock is only being propped up by those who believe the merger will go through. If it doesn't go through, we'll get a true picture of Sprint's valuation as the stock price plummets.


    T-Mo was in as bad if not worse shape than Sprint it's today prior to their failed merger attempt with AT&T at the start of the decade.
    So grossly false. T-Mobile wasn't losing anywhere close to the type of money that Sprint loses today.

    There's no reason some cash and better leadership couldn't fix Sprint too.
    Some cash? How much cash? Who is willing to spend that cash aside from T-Mobile? And even T-Mobile is only doing it, because they can cut costs and eliminate redundancies. I haven't seen nor heard of any other company nor individual willing to invest "some cash". As an investment, a standalone Sprint is a money losing money pit from the start.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,613
    Device(s)
    Any Windows Phones!
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    I hope they eliminate every redundant job they can. Of course they need to streamline the operation, take the extra proceeds and invest in the network so they can better compete on the same scale as AT&T and Verizon. Both T-Mobile & Sprint have higher fixed costs per customer and this means they have less resources to compete.

    Of course the anti-TMobile crew and those who support AT&T and Verizon want to protect the duopoly from such competition. And the AG lawsuits are AT&T's and Verizon's last ditch effort to stop what they failed to stop with the FCC and the DOJ.



    You clearly can't read a balance sheet if you believe that. You also don't understand simple debt servicing and the burden Sprint's long-term debt puts on their cash flow. But the anti-merger folks throw out this false narrative that Sprint is in great shape. Financial analysts state their outlook is bearish. Really, the stock is only being propped up by those who believe the merger will go through. If it doesn't go through, we'll get a true picture of Sprint's valuation as the stock price plummets.




    So grossly false. T-Mobile wasn't losing anywhere close to the type of money that Sprint loses today.



    Some cash? How much cash? Who is willing to spend that cash aside from T-Mobile? And even T-Mobile is only doing it, because they can cut costs and eliminate redundancies. I haven't seen nor heard of any other company nor individual willing to invest "some cash". As an investment, a standalone Sprint is a money losing money pit from the start.
    Funny, my takeaway from your response is that you clearly understand T-Mo promise of protecting jobs is a blatant lie!

    Again, I'm a very happy T-Mo customer but still anti-merger. If I had wanted to subscribe to a giant soulless behemoth for my wireless needs, I already had two options that I consciously avoided and chose T-Mo instead.

    When T-Mo joins AT&T and Verizon at the "adult table" they'll become a third soulless behemoth. T-Mo's pricing and excellent customer service exist because they *have* to be cheap and friendly to compete with the big two's vastly superior networks. Once T-Mo is one of the big boys, they will no longer need childish things like friendly service and low pricing to attract customers.

    AT&T and Verizon didn't get big by being bad, they became bad by being big!



    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
    --
    Todd Allcock, Microsoft MVP: Mobile Devices 2007-2011

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    225
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post
    Funny, my takeaway from your response is that you clearly understand T-Mo promise of protecting jobs is a blatant lie!

    Again, I'm a very happy T-Mo customer but still anti-merger. If I had wanted to subscribe to a giant soulless behemoth for my wireless needs, I already had two options that I consciously avoided and chose T-Mo instead.

    When T-Mo joins AT&T and Verizon at the "adult table" they'll become a third soulless behemoth. T-Mo's pricing and excellent customer service exist because they *have* to be cheap and friendly to compete with the big two's vastly superior networks. Once T-Mo is one of the big boys, they will no longer need childish things like friendly service and low pricing to attract customers.

    AT&T and Verizon didn't get big by being bad, they became bad by being big!



    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
    Even if the merger goes through, there is a 2/3 of a market that can be tapped into if tmobile continues its reasonable pricing, solid customer support and capacity/coverage improvements. Not to mention huge federal contracts that have top tier customers.

    All you've said is hot air and no facts.

    Regardless, bring on the extra attendee to the adult table, that gives me a choice as a consumer to choose from 3 adults at the table vs two adults, one teenager and one 10 year old eating glue in the back of the room.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,613
    Device(s)
    Any Windows Phones!
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by L33 View Post
    Tmobile was no where near as bad of position as sprint during its merger with ATT financially. Sure business wasn't going well but their finances were no where in dire problematic situation as sprint right now. Not to mention tmobile at the time wasn't bleeding huge amounts of money quarter to quarter like sprint is right now. They were bleeding, but no where to the scale as sprint is. Its interesting how you suggest some cash with leadership can fix sprint, how much cash? 30B debt plus network costs to match tmobile in coverage? Oh I'm certain some dumb investors will write a check right away to fix this up disregarding long history of non stop disappointment. I'm sure these investors will see return on their investment, not in their lifetime if sprint survives even with solid leadership.

    Your arguments are weak at best, many economist oppose the deal as much as many are pro deal. Same can be said for anti merger hofo armchair experts that hold the position of merger bad, no merger good. Please get off your high horse because your anti merger side is not a better alternative than the pro merger side. You guys parade the same nonsense with job losses this competition that with cherry picked examples that favor your cause.

    In addition, listing on examples where merger goes bad (with an example listing sprint, great example, totally no bias with this dumpster fire of a company) is a joke. When Sirius and XM merged back 07 everyone was screaming that it would cause subscription hikes with 11 states urging FCC to impose heavy restrictions on the merger (which never happened because the demands were outrageous) and the resulting company today is stronger than ever. Subscription hikes did not take place, prices remained flat and you get more programing for your dollar but that depends on what package you pick. Did job losses take place? Yep, and that's necessary. If I got a business that's failing you bet I'd tell redundant staff to clean their desks out because its either 10% of the workforce or 100% of the workforce down the line if nothing is done.
    T-Mo's debt to equity ratio around the time of the failed AT&T merger was just about exactly where Sprint's is today, IIRC, (though both numbers were much lower as T-Mo was *much* smaller then than Sprint is today.) Equivalently, it took less to get T-Mo back on its feet (a $4 billion golden handshake from AT&T) than it will take to fix Sprint.

    The difference between this merger and Sirius/XM (or the failed DirecTV/DISH merger) is the latter two are part of larger industries ("radio" and "television"). If there were equivalent priced and coveraged alternate methods of handheld wireless communication (e.g. satellite, WiFi mesh, whatever) then cellular consolidation wouldn't be a issue. We could just switch from cellular to the "other" tech, like I can switch from SiriusXM to commercial radio, internet streaming, podcasts, etc.

    I'm also not suggesting this merger is going to bring the world to an end, just that cellular will get a little less competitive and more expensive in the mid-term (after T-Mo's Hail Mary promises and giveaways expire.)

    In the long term, none of this really matters, because technology is fleeting. If wireless gets too consolidated, some other disruptive technology will eventually come along as an alternative and work to keep it honest (like DBS did with cable, until broadband bundling ruined that!)

    I have no high horse to be knocked off of. In the current political environment, this merger is going to happen, whether we like it or not. The states aren't going to stop it, nor do they expect to- they are leveraging the lawsuit to extract whatever concessions they can to protect consumers. Maybe they'll get T-Mo to guarantee wholesale rates to protect MVNOs, or increase the ridiculous "100GB/year" limit on the "generous" low-income broadband proposal T-Mo is floating. In any case, any concessions you see from T-Mo is because of the DOJ's and states' opposition.

    My arguments and opinions here, like yours, have no weight or bearing on what's going to happen and are just for academic and entertainment purposes. When the dust clears, I'll just miss the old lean and hungry T-Mo and what it did to buck the establishment before it became part of it, and we'll all have five good years to squirrel away a few bucks to cover the inevitable price increases we'll see in 2015 or 2016.



    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    225
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post
    T-Mo's debt to equity ratio around the time of the failed AT&T merger was just about exactly where Sprint's is today, IIRC, (though both numbers were much lower as T-Mo was *much* smaller then than Sprint is today.) Equivalently, it took less to get T-Mo back on its feet (a $4 billion golden handshake from AT&T) than it will take to fix Sprint.

    The difference between this merger and Sirius/XM (or the failed DirecTV/DISH merger) is the latter two are part of larger industries ("radio" and "television"). If there were equivalent priced and coveraged alternate methods of handheld wireless communication (e.g. satellite, WiFi mesh, whatever) then cellular consolidation wouldn't be a issue. We could just switch from cellular to the "other" tech, like I can switch from SiriusXM to commercial radio, internet streaming, podcasts, etc.

    I'm also not suggesting this merger is going to bring the world to an end, just that cellular will get a little less competitive and more expensive in the mid-term (after T-Mo's Hail Mary promises and giveaways expire.)

    In the long term, none of this really matters, because technology is fleeting. If wireless gets too consolidated, some other disruptive technology will eventually come along as an alternative and work to keep it honest (like DBS did with cable, until broadband bundling ruined that!)

    I have no high horse to be knocked off of. In the current political environment, this merger is going to happen, whether we like it or not. The states aren't going to stop it, nor do they expect to- they are leveraging the lawsuit to extract whatever concessions they can to protect consumers. Maybe they'll get T-Mo to guarantee wholesale rates to protect MVNOs, or increase the ridiculous "100GB/year" limit on the "generous" low-income broadband proposal T-Mo is floating. In any case, any concessions you see from T-Mo is because of the DOJ's and states' opposition.

    My arguments and opinions here, like yours, have no weight or bearing on what's going to happen and are just for academic and entertainment purposes. When the dust clears, I'll just miss the old lean and hungry T-Mo and what it did to buck the establishment before it became part of it, and we'll all have five good years to squirrel away a few bucks to cover the inevitable price increases we'll see in 2015 or 2016.



    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
    Fair enough, opinions are opinions after all.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,613
    Device(s)
    Any Windows Phones!
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by L33 View Post
    Even if the merger goes through, there is a 2/3 of a market that can be tapped into if tmobile continues its reasonable pricing, solid customer support and capacity/coverage improvements. Not to mention huge federal contracts that have top tier customers.

    All you've said is hot air and no facts.

    Regardless, bring on the extra attendee to the adult table, that gives me a choice as a consumer to choose from 3 adults at the table vs two adults, one teenager and one 10 year old eating glue in the back of the room.
    If all the anti-merger folks here apparently desire to see T-Mo become this huge carrier with vast coverage, like AT&T and Verizon, my question is how did you all end up subscribing to T-Mo in the first place? It's like eating at McDonald's everyday secretly hoping they merge with Ruth's Chris so you can finally get a steak!

    If you want AT&T-level coverage, network quality (and pricing), just subscribe to AT&T for crissakes, don't subscribe to T-Mo and hope they grow (or merge) into it someday!

    I've been with T-Mo since Jamie Lee Curtis was pimping it as Voicestream, and I subscribed because back then it offered half the coverage for half the price. I muddled through when they were still offering an EDGE network when everyone else was 3G, because I was paying dirt for it (comparitively). Now we're at 80% of the coverage for 80% of the price, and that's good enough for me.

    I just find it amusing that the pro-merger folks here think that T-Mo will build out a $50 billion snazzy 5G network that covers 100% of the country and yet still let us all keep our now-unlimited $20/month "Talk n Text 100 with T-Zones" plans or whatever. Good luck with that, kids!

    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,914
    Carrier(s)
    TMobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post
    If all the anti-merger folks here apparently desire to see T-Mo become this huge carrier with vast coverage, like AT&T and Verizon, my question is how did you all end up subscribing to T-Mo in the first place? It's like eating at McDonald's everyday secretly hoping they merge with Ruth's Chris so you can finally get a steak!

    If you want AT&T-level coverage, network quality (and pricing), just subscribe to AT&T for crissakes, don't subscribe to T-Mo and hope they grow (or merge) into it someday!

    I've been with T-Mo since Jamie Lee Curtis was pimping it as Voicestream, and I subscribed because back then it offered half the coverage for half the price. I muddled through when they were still offering an EDGE network when everyone else was 3G, because I was paying dirt for it (comparitively). Now we're at 80% of the coverage for 80% of the price, and that's good enough for me.

    I just find it amusing that the pro-merger folks here think that T-Mo will build out a $50 billion snazzy 5G network that covers 100% of the country and yet still let us all keep our now-unlimited $20/month "Talk n Text 100 with T-Zones" plans or whatever. Good luck with that, kids!

    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
    Prices won't stay where they are for too long. My guess not long after the 3 year pledge prices will start to creep up. To build up they will have to raise prices

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,010
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post
    Funny, my takeaway from your response is that you clearly understand T-Mo promise of protecting jobs is a blatant lie!
    No doubt because that's exactly what he said.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,613
    Device(s)
    Any Windows Phones!
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by themanhimself View Post
    Prices won't stay where they are for too long. My guess not long after the 3 year pledge prices will start to creep up. To build up they will have to raise prices
    I'll give it five, since that's how long they promised to offer those two new prepaid plans (UT&T plus 2GB for $15, plus 5GB for $25.) That should keep MVNOs' and other carriers' prepaid plans in line and maintain downward pressure on pricing for the short to mid-term.

    Then, the sky's the limit!



    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,010
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post
    If all the anti-merger folks here apparently desire to see T-Mo become this huge carrier with vast coverage, like AT&T and Verizon, my question is how did you all end up subscribing to T-Mo in the first place?
    1) price

    2) rooting for the underdog

    3) absolute hatred of AT&T and VZW business practices*

    Every decision you make in life has tradeoffs. What it comes down to is, what is acceptable to you?

    Not everyone is looking for the same thing in life.

    And then T-Mobile goes and rewards the long time customers by...growing and increasing their service.

    What a concept.


    *I am pondering Visible for my family, but I cannot rid myself of the bad taste of "this would really end up no better than doing business with VZW directly". They can't even make themselves get rid of the whole "you must use a VZW compatible phone" thing. They support about six non-VZW Android phones. That alone is a deal breaker, and is pretty much proof that I'm right that it's no better than doing business with VZW.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,613
    Device(s)
    Any Windows Phones!
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by adam1991 View Post
    1) price

    2) rooting for the underdog

    3) absolute hatred of AT&T and VZW business practices*

    Every decision you make in life has tradeoffs. What it comes down to is, what is acceptable to you?

    Not everyone is looking for the same thing in life.

    And then T-Mobile goes and rewards the long time customers by...growing and increasing their service.

    What a concept.


    *I am pondering Visible for my family, but I cannot rid myself of the bad taste of "this would really end up no better than doing business with VZW directly". They can't even make themselves get rid of the whole "you must use a VZW compatible phone" thing. They support about six non-VZW Android phones. That alone is a deal breaker, and is pretty much proof that I'm right that it's no better than doing business with VZW.

    Well, post merger, you can probably scratch 1 and 2 off the list (eventually), and maybe 3 when the business practices of the no-longer-hungry big T-Mo come into play.

    I'm curious on how Visible shakes out. I suspect they'll eventually sort out BYOD, but honestly, the freedom to pick my own device without getting my carrier involved was one of the great side benefits of going with Voicestream/T-Mo in the first place. I've even avoided some great Sprint deals (SERO, free year of service, etc.) over the years because I hated the idea of being limited to carrier-blessed devices. I like being able to just switch SIMs and go, so I keep a few old phones ready to go for special circumstances (Beach day? Home repairs? Grab an old beater with an already scratched screen. Camping? Take my Moto E4 Plus with 2-day battery life, etc.)


    As to "rewarding" any of us, I find most companies like to pretend they reward tenure, but in reality, reward ARPU. Like when T-Mo threw a bunch of folks off of certain low-cost grandfathered plans a couple of years back. (Sprint has a history in that area too, telling a bunch of folks with ancient sub-$10/month low usage plans to either upgrade or pack their bags.)

    Today's loyal customers with grandfathered plans are just tomorrow's freeloaders!



    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,849
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by adam1991 View Post

    *I am pondering Visible for my family, but I cannot rid myself of the bad taste of "this would really end up no better than doing business with VZW directly". They can't even make themselves get rid of the whole "you must use a VZW compatible phone" thing. They support about six non-VZW Android phones. That alone is a deal breaker, and is pretty much proof that I'm right that it's no better than doing business with VZW.
    Since Visible uses Verizon's network does it not make sense to have a phone that is compatible with Verizon's network?

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,914
    Carrier(s)
    TMobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post
    Well, post merger, you can probably scratch 1 and 2 off the list (eventually), and maybe 3 when the business practices of the no-longer-hungry big T-Mo come into play.

    I'm curious on how Visible shakes out. I suspect they'll eventually sort out BYOD, but honestly, the freedom to pick my own device without getting my carrier involved was one of the great side benefits of going with Voicestream/T-Mo in the first place. I've even avoided some great Sprint deals (SERO, free year of service, etc.) over the years because I hated the idea of being limited to carrier-blessed devices. I like being able to just switch SIMs and go, so I keep a few old phones ready to go for special circumstances (Beach day? Home repairs? Grab an old beater with an already scratched screen. Camping? Take my Moto E4 Plus with 2-day battery life, etc.)


    As to "rewarding" any of us, I find most companies like to pretend they reward tenure, but in reality, reward ARPU. Like when T-Mo threw a bunch of folks off of certain low-cost grandfathered plans a couple of years back. (Sprint has a history in that area too, telling a bunch of folks with ancient sub-$10/month low usage plans to either upgrade or pack their bags.)

    Today's loyal customers with grandfathered plans are just tomorrow's freeloaders!



    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
    I figure just a matter of time but eventually T-Mobile will either upgrade people to more expensive plans or make it really difficult to keep an old plan

    I think they will have to in order to support their long term future plans

    I am in favor of the merger though. I think at this point it's the best thing with how sprint seems to be struggling
    Last edited by themanhimself; 11-14-2019 at 06:08 PM.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,613
    Device(s)
    Any Windows Phones!
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    Since Visible uses Verizon's network does it not make sense to have a phone that is compatible with Verizon's network?
    Of course, but the phones that Visible allows are a tiny, tiny subset of Verizon-compatible phones.

    From what I understand, it has to do with Visible being an LTE-only service, so the phone has to support Verizon VoLTE (else you'd have no voice service at all, since Visible won't/can't fall back to CDMA.) This complicates BYOD for them a bit.

    VoLTE has been a bit of a sh*tshow, given every carrier's difficulty or unwillingness to allow each other's devices to easily use it. My Verizon-branded Moto E4 Plus won't use VoLTE in T-Mo, despite the fact an unbranded, direct from Motorola version does. Some AT&T-branded devices won't use VoLTE on Cricket, even though it's the same network, etc.





    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 63
    Last Post: 09-09-2018, 01:30 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-30-2016, 07:15 AM
  3. T-Mobile becomes the "Un-Carrier" (No-contracts)
    By terryjohnson16 in forum T-Mobile
    Replies: 356
    Last Post: 04-04-2013, 03:34 PM
  4. Nokia to unveil three new mobiles (clam shell/flip models)
    By eakenn in forum General Mobile Questions and Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-26-2003, 04:06 PM
  5. FS: Brand New Un-used Un-snapped T-Mobile SIM "Smart" Card
    By ProtoMan.EXE in forum GSM phone Buy/Sell/Trade
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-11-2003, 09:41 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks