Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 132

Thread: T-Mobile three new Un-Carrier moves

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    2,146
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post
    First, Verizon sells these phones at full price, so buying a phone from Verizon and immediately using it on another carrier shouldn't harm them one bit- in fact they make a profit because they sell the phones at a markup.
    Yeah except when they are giving you a phone for free or a huge discount. Then they turn around and go to another carrier


    Instead they chose 60 days, to discourage non-Verizon customers from buying Verizon phones, which would be fine, of they had already not CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED themselves to sell all 700MHz phones unlocked.
    I hate when people bringing a up a stupid rule that T-Mobile doesn't have to follow despite 600 MHz being far superior to band 13. This is why I wish Verizon participated in the 600 MHz auction so they could dump band 13 off on someone else. And if they ever did a deal with Dish and/or Comcast and/or other spectrum speculators the could get 10X10 600 MHz in most of the US to replace band 13. Not to mention the FCC eventually reauctioning unsold band 71. What's your excuse going to be when if Verizon did that?

    No one held a gun to their heads when they bought the nationwide license to that section of spectrum, and it's not like stealing phones was invented in 2008 after Verizon signed that deal.
    The FCC says they could do it. Once again why get a phone then leave in 60 days. Ho about justifying that. Once again bringing up "but..but band 13 rules" is disingenuous an stupid when no one else has to follow those rules.

    But I get it. Large companies can do no wrong. Silly me.
    No one said that and when T-Mobile has it's own 40 policy it's hello pot meet kettle. Either locking phones is wrong or it's not. Are you a hypocrite or not?

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,892
    Device(s)
    Any Windows Phones!
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    Yeah except when they are giving you a phone for free or a huge discount. Then they turn around and go to another carrier




    I hate when people bringing a up a stupid rule that T-Mobile doesn't have to follow despite 600 MHz being far superior to band 13. This is why I wish Verizon participated in the 600 MHz auction so they could dump band 13 off on someone else. And if they ever did a deal with Dish and/or Comcast and/or other spectrum speculators the could get 10X10 600 MHz in most of the US to replace band 13. Not to mention the FCC eventually reauctioning unsold band 71. What's your excuse going to be when if Verizon did that?



    The FCC says they could do it. Once again why get a phone then leave in 60 days. Ho about justifying that. Once again bringing up "but..but band 13 rules" is disingenuous an stupid when no one else has to follow those rules.



    No one said that and when T-Mobile has it's own 40 policy it's hello pot meet kettle. Either locking phones is wrong or it's not. Are you a hypocrite or not?
    I'm not suggesting it's bad when Verizon does it and ok when T-Mo does.

    I don't even have a problem when a phone is locked because of a subsidy (e.g. Verizon Prepaid).

    We're talking about full priced unsubsidized phones (which, I believe, is all Verizon postpaid sells now, just like T-Mo postpaid.) No full-priced paid-off phone should be locked.

    When T-Mo does it, it's morally wrong.

    When Verizon does it, it's both morally wrong and a violation of the spectrum agreement they agreed to. If Verizon is allowed to lock phones, they should also vacate that spectrum the unlocked device agreement was tied to.


    Lastly, if you need me to bash T-Mo a little, I will be happy to. T-Mo used to be the friendliest carrier for unlocking. If a phone was paid off, you could request an unlock via email, and the request was granted.

    Now, under most circumstances, T-Mo sticks to their silly 40 day policy (and not just 40 days, but 40 days of "active use"- not 40 days of sticking the phone in a drawer and waiting for the clock to run out. I once suffered a month and a half of using a T-Mobile Revvl- a crummy low-end Alcatel phone. I bought it on sale with the intention of using as a backup. By the time I got around to trying it out and seeing how crappy it was, the 30-day return window had closed. I requested an unlock, as I had bought it nearly 60 days before and was told I had to use it on one of my lines for 40 days to get it unlocked!)

    This is another example of the increasing deteriorating consumer-friendliness of T-Mobile as they become more successful, and why I am not looking forward to the monster they will likely become post-merger.

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

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,059
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post
    This is another example of the increasing deteriorating consumer-friendliness of T-Mobile as they become more successful, and why I am not looking forward to the monster they will likely become post-merger.
    ReCarrier has been going on for, what--a year? year and a half? now.

    I have zero expectation that it will change.

    Eventually T-Mobile will surpass VZW in all this...

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,892
    Device(s)
    Any Windows Phones!
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by adam1991 View Post
    ReCarrier has been going on for, what--a year? year and a half? now.

    I have zero expectation that it will change.

    Eventually T-Mobile will surpass VZW in all this...
    Yep. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely...

    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

  5. #95
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3,177
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post
    I'm not suggesting it's bad when Verizon does it and ok when T-Mo does.

    I don't even have a problem when a phone is locked because of a subsidy (e.g. Verizon Prepaid).

    We're talking about full priced unsubsidized phones (which, I believe, is all Verizon postpaid sells now, just like T-Mo postpaid.) No full-priced paid-off phone should be locked.

    When T-Mo does it, it's morally wrong.

    When Verizon does it, it's both morally wrong and a violation of the spectrum agreement they agreed to. If Verizon is allowed to lock phones, they should also vacate that spectrum the unlocked device agreement was tied to.


    Lastly, if you need me to bash T-Mo a little, I will be happy to. T-Mo used to be the friendliest carrier for unlocking. If a phone was paid off, you could request an unlock via email, and the request was granted.

    Now, under most circumstances, T-Mo sticks to their silly 40 day policy (and not just 40 days, but 40 days of "active use"- not 40 days of sticking the phone in a drawer and waiting for the clock to run out. I once suffered a month and a half of using a T-Mobile Revvl- a crummy low-end Alcatel phone. I bought it on sale with the intention of using as a backup. By the time I got around to trying it out and seeing how crappy it was, the 30-day return window had closed. I requested an unlock, as I had bought it nearly 60 days before and was told I had to use it on one of my lines for 40 days to get it unlocked!)

    This is another example of the increasing deteriorating consumer-friendliness of T-Mobile as they become more successful, and why I am not looking forward to the monster they will likely become post-merger.

    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
    In my view, unless they are selling the phone for a loss. it is not really being "subsidized". From the definition of the word:

    having part of the cost of production paid in order to keep the selling price low.
    "subsidized food"


    So many of the so-called subsidized phones are are levels of reduced profit, nowhere near biting into the cost of production. Given this, there is nothing wrong or immoral with using any means necessary to unlock and fully use a phone that it is in this "reduced profit, but not subsidized" status. As long as the phone is fully paid off.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3,177
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by adam1991 View Post
    ReCarrier has been going on for, what--a year? year and a half? now.

    I have zero expectation that it will change.

    Eventually T-Mobile will surpass VZW in all this...
    To me, Re-Carrier means getting a network as good as the duopoly...or better, eventually.. That's a lot more important than their customer service getting more grumpy.

    Coverage is something a customer experiences always. Customer service is something that customers only experience when something goes wrong.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,461
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    To me, Re-Carrier means getting a network as good as the duopoly...or better, eventually.. That's a lot more important than their customer service getting more grumpy.

    Coverage is something a customer experiences always. Customer service is something that customers only experience when something goes wrong.
    That's a good point. I think there is a great percentage of people who seldom leave their home area, or really don't care too much about 100%, 24/7 service. Several people on my account are that way, and never even go over the 2Gb data cap that enables KickBack credit. If they leave us alone for the next 3 to 5 years, that would be awesome. I expect they will.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,892
    Device(s)
    Any Windows Phones!
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    To me, Re-Carrier means getting a network as good as the duopoly...or better, eventually.. That's a lot more important than their customer service getting more grumpy.

    Coverage is something a customer experiences always. Customer service is something that customers only experience when something goes wrong.
    To most of us here, "re-carrier" is an insult, leveled at T-Mo's hypocrisy when they act just like the carriers they claim they are unlike by saying they're the "uncarrier.".

    And don't confuse "customer service" with "customer service rep" or "customer service department". Customer service isn't just the "team of experts", or a call center; it includes T-Mo's polices and procedures, like charging customers a fee for buying a phone in store instead of online, or charging $20 for a SIM that's already in the box of the phone you're trying to buy, or allowing independent dealers to tack on additional paperwork and activation fees.



    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,059
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    To me, Re-Carrier means getting a network as good as the duopoly
    no, ReCarrier means tmo is becoming just like VZW and AT&T with regard to business practices.

    It has nothing to do with coverage.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    166
    Feedback Score
    0
    Is an interest free loan a subsidy? Is that phone "subsidized"?

    Is there a reasonable expectation that any lender would loan money at a zero percent interest rate?

    are BOGO phones subsidized?

    Are any of the carriers making money on the hardware side of the transaction on a 50% off BOGO deal? Is a 50% discount eating intothe hardware cost? Do the carriers pay more than $550.00 for an $1,100.00 Note 10 plus?

    Is a free Apple iPhone 8 64 GB below cost?

    But you must maintain the service for 24 months.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,059
    Feedback Score
    0
    ReCarrier.

    BOGO--well, that's a stretch. "Buy two and, if you remain as a customer, we'll dribble back bill credits over 24 months in the amount you paid for one of the phones".

    But even then, the phone is NOT subsidized the way t-mo plays the game. It's full pay. And they should unlock it.

    But no more than two unlocks per year per line, now...

    At least it's not like they FORCE you to buy branded phones (yet). Factory unlocked phones behave very well with t-mo features, unlike with AT&T and VZW.

    But I'm sure it's only a matter of time.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    2,146
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post
    When Verizon does it, it's both morally wrong and a violation of the spectrum agreement they agreed to. If Verizon is allowed to lock phones, they should also vacate that spectrum the unlocked device agreement was tied to.
    As I said I wish Verizon had bought 600 MHZ( which means T-Mobile certainly would have ended up with LESS. So that way they could phase out band 13 and not have to abide about dumb rules don't don't apply to any other spectrum. The rule only applies because band 13 was supposedly superior to any other spectrum. I'm sorry but band 71 is superior to band 13. And yet band 71 has none of these dumb rules. WHY? nd If you want to force Verizon to give up band 13 then who is going to buy it? NO ONE. No one will buy band 13 if it is shown these stupid rules are actually going to be strictly enforced. Also if you read the rules is allows Verizon to do just what they have done and ask the FCC for some leeway. Either lacking for is right for all or not right for ANYONE and just because s stupid rules exists doesn't mean it SHOULD. Have you every jaywalked. Did you immediately turn yourself in to the police? Why not? it was a rule and you broke it.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,892
    Device(s)
    Any Windows Phones!
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    As I said I wish Verizon had bought 600 MHZ( which means T-Mobile certainly would have ended up with LESS. So that way they could phase out band 13 and not have to abide about dumb rules don't don't apply to any other spectrum. The rule only applies because band 13 was supposedly superior to any other spectrum. I'm sorry but band 71 is superior to band 13. And yet band 71 has none of these dumb rules. WHY? nd If you want to force Verizon to give up band 13 then who is going to buy it? NO ONE. No one will buy band 13 if it is shown these stupid rules are actually going to be strictly enforced. Also if you read the rules is allows Verizon to do just what they have done and ask the FCC for some leeway. Either lacking for is right for all or not right for ANYONE and just because s stupid rules exists doesn't mean it SHOULD. Have you every jaywalked. Did you immediately turn yourself in to the police? Why not? it was a rule and you broke it.
    Verizon didn't ask for any leeway, using the old concept that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. Of course the current net-neutrality killing, corporate-friendly FCC did bupkis about it.

    And frankly, it doesn't really matter- as you and a prior poster said, the 60 day unlock delay isn't really onerous, and it's still the friendliest unlock policy in the industry.

    My point was only that this seeming consumer friendliness is not out of the goodness of Verizon's little black heart, but courtesy of the FCC rules they agreed to, and even then they violated those rules as far as they dare. Verizon deserves no credit for their "friendly" policy!



    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    2,146
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post
    Verizon didn't ask for any leeway, using the old concept that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. Of course the current net-neutrality killing, corporate-friendly FCC did bupkis about it.
    Actually Verizon did not implement this policy until the FCC gave the OK. At least be factual in your posts.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,892
    Device(s)
    Any Windows Phones!
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    Actually Verizon did not implement this policy until the FCC gave the OK. At least be factual in your posts.
    If I'm mistaken, I apologize to you and Verizon.

    The way I remember it, (though I definitely could be mistaken!) before Verizon applied for the exception, they shipped and sold locked phones, and until it was approved, just unlocked them on request. I seem to recall the 60 day delay thing came later.



    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

Page 7 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