T-Mobile three new Un-Carrier moves

[adam1991]

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.

That's an if-then future. I was responding directly to the question, why did you do business with t-mo in the first place?

Everyone has his own reasons.

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.

Arguably, they are very strong in that arena. Very strong. It's almost like they recognize that they have to compete well. Hmmmmm.....

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!

You misunderstand me. I did business with t-mobile in order to reward them and to help them provide competition to ATT/VZW.

[adam1991]

Since Visible uses Verizon's network does it not make sense to have a phone that is compatible with Verizon's network?

VZW traditionally locks down its phones horribly. To say "you need a VZW compatible phone" is a life sentence in hell.

[adam1991]

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

That's a very obvious thought. On the other hand, I've found them to be VERY accommodating with respect to grandfathered plans.

What they do, though, is twist and weave the feature sets to make it very attractive to get you to move. They won't push you off a plan; on the other hand, they will eventually hit a combination of features/price on new plans that will make you want to make the move yourself.

But that could change, of course.

[adam1991]

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.

Absolutely.

And that VZW would play those games ON ITS OWN CHILD BUSINESS VISIBLE is more proof that you really don't want to do business with VZW--even with Visible.

[themanhimself]

Oh I've never liked Verizon phone policy and how locked down they are. I do like they unlock after 60 days but that's it

Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using HoFo mobile app

[elecconnec]

Oh I've never liked Verizon phone policy and how locked down they are. I do like they unlock after 60 days but that's it

Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using HoFo mobile app

You "like" that they unlock after 60 days? You're too kind. The bastards shouldn't be locking them in the first place!

Verizon agreed to sell it's LTE devices unlocked as a condition of winning the 700MHz C-block auction a decade ago. Then last year, despite that ongoing requirement, Verizon unilaterally decided to start selling locked devices to "prevent theft and fraud", and unlock them on request after 60 days.

Of course, in the current political environment, no federal agency is going to tell a giant corporation what it can or can't do, so the Feds have just completely ignored this violation of the auction agreement.



Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

[elecconnec]

You misunderstand me. I did business with t-mobile in order to reward them and to help them provide competition to ATT/VZW.

My apologies. Then you, sir, are on the side of the angels!



Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

[themanhimself]

You "like" that they unlock after 60 days? You're too kind. The bastards shouldn't be locking them in the first place!

Verizon agreed to sell it's LTE devices unlocked as a condition of winning the 700MHz C-block auction a decade ago. Then last year, despite that ongoing requirement, Verizon unilaterally decided to start selling locked devices to "prevent theft and fraud", and unlock them on request after 60 days.

Of course, in the current political environment, no federal agency is going to tell a giant corporation what it can or can't do, so the Feds have just completely ignored this violation of the auction agreement.



Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

Yeah I’d prefer unlocked from the start but compared to the others it’s a little more relaxed. T-Mobile and att seem to fight unlocks until paid off and then they sometimes still fight it

[elecconnec]

VZW traditionally locks down its phones horribly. To say "you need a VZW compatible phone" is a life sentence in hell.

Very true. I still remember using a Verizon-branded Nokia phone on T-Mo that simply would not send text messages when the phone was connected to 3G or LTE. It would receive them fine on any network, but would only send on 2G! I had to go into the settings and manually force the phone down to GSM in order to send a text!

My only other Verizon device is the previously mentioned Moto E4 Plus, which thankfully texts ok, but neither VoLTE nor WiFi calling work on T-Mo. (Neither of which bothers me, because it's a backup phone and I can use the T-Mo Digits app for voice calls over LTE or WiFi if/when needed.)

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

[adam1991]

T-Mobile and att seem to fight unlocks until paid off

Perfectly reasonable--especially if it's in the contract you sign that gets you your shiny toy for "only a few bucks a month! Zero down!" instead of making you, you know, save up so you can buy it on your own all up all in. Like an adult.

[elecconnec]

Yeah I’d prefer unlocked from the start but compared to the others it’s a little more relaxed. T-Mobile and att seem to fight unlocks until paid off and then they sometimes still fight it

Fair enough. My point was only that Verizon obligated itself not to lock their phones, in return for a particular band of spectrum. AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint did not place themselves under the same restrictions.



Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

[Jack Hagar]

Absolutely.

And that VZW would play those games ON ITS OWN CHILD BUSINESS VISIBLE is more proof that you really don't want to do business with VZW--even with Visible.

Ok loosen up your bias cap for a minute. Verizon is shutting down CDMA so why would Visible( a new MVNO ) even bother with offering CDMA service? Also Verizon does not run Visible even though they are somewhat connected. And Xfinity and Spectrum are the same way and is the reason why their selection of Verizon devices is small. And they have no connection to Verizon. It's not Verizon being playing games it's not adding more people to the CDMA network that is going to be shut down within a year anyway. There are legitimate reasons to criticize Verizon for without having to make s--t up.

[Jack Hagar]

Fair enough. My point was only that Verizon obligated itself not to lock their phones, in return for a particular band of spectrum. AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint did not place themselves under the same restrictions.



Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

I suppose Verizon could continue to thrives and scam artists steal their phones and either just increase the prices of the phones on ALL customers or increase the upgrade fee by $20. Is that fair to honest people? it's 60 days lock. Now why would you need to unlock your phone within 60 days of buying a new phone if you're not leaving Verizon?

[adam1991]

Ok loosen up your bias cap for a minute. Verizon is shutting down CDMA so why would Visible( a new MVNO ) even bother with offering CDMA service?

WTH are you talking about? This has nothing to do with CDMA, and everything to do with Visible supporting VERY VERY few phones that aren't VZW phones.

What part of anything I said was about CDMA?????

Also Verizon does not run Visible even though they are somewhat connected.

Oh really? VZW *owns* Visible, and created it specifically to try to do what AT&T has managed to do with Cricket (although Cricket started and grew without AT&T, and AT&T decided the concept was good so they bought it wholesale). "Somewhat connected"??? I'm not sure you know how the business world works.

I really don't think you understand what's going on here or what we're talking about.

And Xfinity and Spectrum are the same way and is the reason why their selection of Verizon devices is small. And they have no connection to Verizon. It's not Verizon being playing games it's not adding more people to the CDMA network that is going to be shut down within a year anyway. There are legitimate reasons to criticize Verizon for without having to make s--t up.

Nobody said anything about CDMA.

And in fact, the point is that Visible manages not to support perfectly legitimate, modern LTE phones. Galaxy S9 but not Galaxy S10? And which Galaxy S9 variants, mmmm? Plug in your IMEI and see. Whoops, sorry. Why not shop for a phone from us? THAT'S pure VZW.

[elecconnec]

I suppose Verizon could continue to thrives and scam artists steal their phones and either just increase the prices of the phones on ALL customers or increase the upgrade fee by $20. Is that fair to honest people? it's 60 days lock. Now why would you need to unlock your phone within 60 days of buying a new phone if you're not leaving Verizon?

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.

If they were trying to protect themselves from thieves who steal phones, they could simply warehouse them locked and unlock them on purchase or on demand (with valid proof of purchase.)

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.

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.

But I get it. Large companies can do no wrong. Silly me.



Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk