nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <socbr2$7at$1@dont-email.me>, AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>
>> >>> Back in the dark ages when my son was driving between home and
>> >>> Berkeley he would stop at the halfway point (when he refilled
>> >>> the tank) and call us collect. We would, of course, refuse the
>> >>> call. "I'm not dead yet" calls are way better than NOT getting
>> >>> them.
>>
>> >> My folks did kind of the same thing. When a relative returned home
>> >> they would make a long distance person-to-person call to a
>> >> fictitious name at my folk's number. When they told the operator
>> >> the person wasn't there there was no charge and the folks knew the
>> >> relative got home OK.
>>
>> > another method is ring once. if there's no second ring, call back.
>>
>> Hams used to use one ringers to get another ham across the country on a
>> the air on a prearranged frequency. Amazing how many ways there were to
>> cheat Ma Bell...
>
> the easiest and most effective ways were with various coloured boxes...

With ISDN you could send additional data with the call setup, that the
callee would receive and then they could still reject the call. Was
used for some protection mechanisms (e.g. some device should only answer
calls from a specific central system).
This was a way to send data for free. Software had been written to use
it (with a PC ISDN card).

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnsqjmjt.25j.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
> <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>
>> >>>>>>> nanp was designed to have fixed length numbers, with a 3-3-4 format,
>> >>>>>>> which has several advantages over variable length numbers, including
>> >>>>>>> simpler phone switches and easier to remember numbers as well as
>> >>>>>>> knowing where they are located.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> No, the contrary! In your system the knowledge of where 212 is located
>> >>>>>> brings you nothing w.r.t. the location of 213.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> no reason why it should.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Because you said: knowing where they are located.
>> >>>> With our area code, it is easy to know where they are located.
>> >>>
>> >>> same here.
>> >>
>> >> You would have to remember the entire table.
>> >
>> > No, because very few people would ever call most of the area codes. The
>> > ones you remember are the ones near you and the ones in highly populated
>> > areas. Most people probably know that New York City is 212 and Los
>> > Angeles is 213. They aren't memorizing area codes. If they really need
>> > to know the area code they can always look it up. Pre-Internet there
>> > were phone directories that had that information in it. It used to be a
>> > big deal when the new phone books were delivered to your house, back
>> > before many people had unlisted numbers (and it cost extra to not have
>> > your number printed in the directory).
>>
>> You are just as dense as "nospam", right?
>> How do you guys keep toggling between making one claim, then contradicting
>> that this is a valid claim?
>
> there is no contradiction in the above.
>
> you do not understand how nanp was designed and insist your method is
> the only correct method possible.
>
>> You guys say "easier to remember numbers as well as knowing where they
>> are located". NO SUCH THING. From the above you still don't know
>> there the number is located.
>
> not true. it's very easy to know where a number is.
>
> what you fail to grasp is that the only places that matter to people
> are the places they actually call.
>
> nobody calls every single area code, so there's no reason to memorize
> the entire area code and exchange allocation for the entire country.
>
>> Here, when I know where 0346 is located and I get a call from 0345,
>> (comparable to 213 or 214 in your example), I still know that they
>> are from the same general area, the area of my province. NO SUCH THING
>> in the USA, knowing were 212 and 213 are located tells you absolutely
>> nothing about 214.
>
> there's no reason why it should, other than it's a populated area
> because it has a low number of pulls.
>
> those who regularly call 214 would know where it is, which is all that
> matters. those who do not call 214 do not need to know since they never
> call anyone there.
>
> as i said, nanp area codes were allocated based on pulls and
> population, which is a much better method because it improves the
> efficiency of the system. the faster calls can be connected, the more
> calls that can be processed. new york city and los angeles had the most
> people and were assigned the shortest codes.
>
> your system of geographical allocation is not efficient.

After all we can conclude that your first statement "as well as knowing
where they are located." was absolutely bogus and that you are now
trying to spin it in your direction.

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/01/2021 11:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> > AFAICT, *everybody* in the US pays the called-party costs for a
> > 'landline' to mobile call. The people with a contract with some bundle
> > of minutes, just pay out of their bundle. That might not be of any
> > concern to them, but they still pay, FSVSVO 'pay'.
>
> I get the first 3 letters but I'm stumped by the last 3. Are two of
> them typos?

For Some Very Small Value Of.

> > Anyway, AFAIC EOD.
>
> Aw come on, don't quit now!

Not to worry. AJL continued, so so did I. :-)

On 12/2/2021 5:10 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

<snip>

> Cheapest I've ever seen is ~15/month.  Who charges $5?

<https://hellomobile.com/register/plans> Click on "View More Plans."
Hello Mobile doesn't have good ratings, but since you're already on
T-Mobile you know the limitations of their coverage so you would be fine.

Check <https://prepaidcompare.net/>. The site owner keeps it up to date
which must be a big job. There are actually ten different plans on
T-Mobile's network for $5 or less, eight, if you throw out the free
FreedomPop and TextNow plans which are too much of a hassle.

For $4 or less per month there are also options.

No Hassle, $30 per year ($2.50 per month)
-----------------------------------------
Red Pocket has a $30/360 day plan with 200 minutes, 1000 SMS, and 200MB
of data per month <https://www.ebay.com/itm/133196831828>. I have one
old phone with this plan. I was thinking of getting T-Mobile home
internet and I wanted to test to see if I had good coverage at my house
yet, but the speeds are too slow at this time.

No Hassle $39.99 per year ($3.33 per month)
-------------------------------------------
Tracfone offers a one year plan, on all three of the nationwide
carriers, for $39.99 with 1200 minutes, 1200 texts, and 3GB of data
(that's what you get per year, not per month). See
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/283448464240>. Extra data is $10/GB and rolls
over. Unused data from the $10/GB rolls over, but I'm not sure about the
unused data from the 3GB/year.

Tracfone's normal pricing tends to be not a good deal, but their yearly
special is. Sometimes you can snag a deal at HSN for a year of service
_and_ a phone. I did this recently. A Samsung A51 with a year of service
(1500/1500/1.5GB) cost me $98.75, and the phone can be unlocked after a
year (maybe less now that Verizon owns Tracfone). I really just wanted
the phone, which normally sells for a lot more than that (around $400
unlocked, with no service).

Big Hassle
----------
TextNow offers unlimited minutes and unlimited text, but no data, for
free. It used to be only for Wi-Fi, but now it uses T-Mobile as well.
$4.99 for a SIM card <https://www.textnow.com/>. It's a huge hassle.
First, it's ad-based so you have to watch ads. Second, you have to call
or text at least once a day to keep the account active.

If you're willing to deal with the hassle of manually renewing each
month, FreedomPop has a new, free, 30 day plan with 300 minutes, 1000
SMS, and 100MB of data <https://www.walmart.com/ip/680827893>. $9.98 SIM
card, sold only at Walmart. From what I've read on Reddit about this
plan, it's even more of a hassle than earlier FreedomPop plans when it
comes to keeping service active.

> I'd like to be able to buy a chunk of data for a reasonable price that
> would be good until I used it up.  NOBODY offers that.

See the Tracfone plan I mentioned above. Data that you purchase rolls
over. Not super-cheap data at $10/GB, but not unreasonable either,
considering what a carrier like Page Plus charges for rollover data
($50/GB).

I think that you have the same issue that I had with the T-Mobile
grandfathered $10/year plan. I built up a big balance that I didn't want
to lose so I kept adding $10 per year so I wouldn't lose it. But with no
data available, and with T-Mobile's coverage issues in my area, I
finally just let it go. It was not my primary phone, I had the SIM in a
ZTE flip phone with VoLTE, and I thought it'd be a good phone to take
along when I was hiking or biking, but the poor coverage made it pretty
useless in the places that I really wanted to use it.

In article <slrnsqk523.ddq.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
<nomail@example.com> wrote:

> >> >> My folks did kind of the same thing. When a relative returned home
> >> >> they would make a long distance person-to-person call to a
> >> >> fictitious name at my folk's number. When they told the operator
> >> >> the person wasn't there there was no charge and the folks knew the
> >> >> relative got home OK.
> >>
> >> > another method is ring once. if there's no second ring, call back.
> >>
> >> Hams used to use one ringers to get another ham across the country on a
> >> the air on a prearranged frequency. Amazing how many ways there were to
> >> cheat Ma Bell...
> >
> > the easiest and most effective ways were with various coloured boxes...
>
> With ISDN you could send additional data with the call setup, that the
> callee would receive and then they could still reject the call. Was
> used for some protection mechanisms (e.g. some device should only answer
> calls from a specific central system).
> This was a way to send data for free. Software had been written to use
> it (with a PC ISDN card).

isdn didn't exist at the time so not relevant. when isdn was available,
most people didn't have it, making it still not relevant.

one ring was one of the most common methods but was limited to only one
person. other methods existed, some more legal than others.

In article <slrnsqk57i.ddq.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
<nomail@example.com> wrote:

> > as i said, nanp area codes were allocated based on pulls and
> > population, which is a much better method because it improves the
> > efficiency of the system. the faster calls can be connected, the more
> > calls that can be processed. new york city and los angeles had the most
> > people and were assigned the shortest codes.
> >
> > your system of geographical allocation is not efficient.
>
> After all we can conclude that your first statement "as well as knowing
> where they are located." was absolutely bogus and that you are now
> trying to spin it in your direction.

nope. it's not bogus and nothing is being spun.

the fact is that you don't understand nanp and assume all sorts of
problems that don't actually exist. worse, you refuse to admit it.

nanp i a different system, with different design goals, for a vastly
larger population (usa/canada/carribean) than where you are. your
proposal of geographical allocation and variable length numbers for
north america would have been a disaster.

On 12/2/2021 11:06 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

<snip>

> Remember Captain Crunch and blue boxes?  Everybody at Caltech made LD
> devices until it was announced that the honor code disallowed them.
> People stopped using them.

Also the Black Box, which Ramparts magazine (now Mother Jones)
published. It allowed you to receive calls free of charge to the caller.
AT&T forced them to recall the issue. The Black box needed only one
resistor, one capacitor, one toggle switch, and one pushbutton switch.
See <http://explodingthephone.com/docs/dbx0431.pdf>. It worked by making
it appear that the called party never answered the phone. There was also
the Red Box, that simulated the sound of coins dropping into a pay phone
slot. It was interesting times.

In article <sod5ih$uk2$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> > Remember Captain Crunch and blue boxes?  Everybody at Caltech made LD
> > devices until it was announced that the honor code disallowed them.
> > People stopped using them.
>
> Also the Black Box, which Ramparts magazine (now Mother Jones)
> published. It allowed you to receive calls free of charge to the caller.
> AT&T forced them to recall the issue.

only in very few places, not that it mattered since the information was
widely known.

the most infamous article was in esquire magazine about the blue box.

> The Black box needed only one
> resistor, one capacitor, one toggle switch, and one pushbutton switch.
> See <http://explodingthephone.com/docs/dbx0431.pdf>. It worked by making
> it appear that the called party never answered the phone.

that's far more complex than it needs to be. one resistor is
sufficient, and maybe a switch to bypass it for normal use.

> There was also
> the Red Box, that simulated the sound of coins dropping into a pay phone
> slot.

ultimately blocked by muting the microphone until call supervision as
well as a 2200hz notch filter.

> It was interesting times.

yes.

On 12/3/2021 12:51 AM, Rob wrote:

<snip>

> Here, when I know where 0346 is located and I get a call from 0345,
> (comparable to 213 or 214 in your example), I still know that they
> are from the same general area, the area of my province. NO SUCH THING
> in the USA, knowing were 212 and 213 are located tells you absolutely
> nothing about 214.

You're really obsessed with this.

I already said that the area codes are not contiguous. But knowing the
geographic location of an area code that you were likely to receive
calls from was just something you remembered, back when it actually
mattered, if it ever did. If you really needed to know where an unknown
area code was located you just looked in the phone directory.

What you really needed to know was not where an area code was located,
but where the three digit prefix was located within an area code,
because an area code covered a huge area and you would have to pay for
calls outside your local area.

Also remember, Caller-ID was not widely available in the U.S. until
1990, and even then it was an extra-cost service that not a lot of
people subscribed to (it initially cost $6.50 per month on the first
carrier that implemented it), and you initially needed an extra box that
displayed the phone number because the landline phones didn't have the
capability. I think that I first had Caller-ID on my landline in around
2006 when I subscribed to DSL+Landline service that included it.

In any case, the bottom line is that the reason for the chaotic system
outside the U.S. is because you had so many different small countries,
close to each other, but all with their own unique numbering system that
was not designed from the beginning to scale up. Had the EU existed back
in the 1940's, there would probably have been a more coherent system
that was designed to scale up as the population and number of lines
increased.

On 12/3/2021 12:52 AM, Rob wrote:
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> I'm often amazed at how chaotic and thoughtless the whole European phone
>> numbering system is, but remember you had 40+ countries, each creating
>> their own numbering scheme, with a phone number length that seemed
>> sufficient just for that country.
>
> But that is actually a good thing, right? A country like France or
> Germany requires more phone numbers than Luxemburg or Malta.
> Why can't they have a different length number?

It seemed like a good thing when international calling was expensive and
infrequent. It made things easier for local calls.

By that logic, Wyoming in the U.S. could have six digit phone numbers
while California had eight digit phone numbers.

It was much more logical to design a coherent system with all phone
numbers the same length, and not require an area code unless calling
outside your local area.

> Do you propose that all e-mail addresses are the same length?
> Or all po box numbers?

That is unrelated to phone numbering systems. But you already knew that,
you're just throwing out ridiculous analogies since you lost the argument.

In article <sod6eq$4oq$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Also remember, Caller-ID was not widely available in the U.S. until
> 1990,

trials as early as 1984, first deployment in 1988.

<https://4thefirsttime.blogspot.com/2007/05/1982-caller-id.html?m=0>
The first market trial for caller ID and other "TouchStar" services
was on July 7, 1984 in Orlando, Florida. Ellis D. Hill, the head of
the BellSouth Product team, coined the term "caller ID."

In 1987, Bell Atlantic conducted another market trial in Hudson
County, New Jersey, which was followed by limited deployment.
BellSouth began the first commercial application of caller ID in
December 1988 in Memphis, Tennessee and was the first regional
Bell to fully deploy the system. Later enhancements include the
providing of name with number, caller ID on call waiting, and
talking caller ID.

> and even then it was an extra-cost service that not a lot of
> people subscribed to (it initially cost $6.50 per month on the first
> carrier that implemented it), and you initially needed an extra box that
> displayed the phone number because the landline phones didn't have the
> capability. I think that I first had Caller-ID on my landline in around
> 2006 when I subscribed to DSL+Landline service that included it.
>
> In any case, the bottom line is that the reason for the chaotic system
> outside the U.S. is because you had so many different small countries,
> close to each other, but all with their own unique numbering system that
> was not designed from the beginning to scale up. Had the EU existed back
> in the 1940's, there would probably have been a more coherent system
> that was designed to scale up as the population and number of lines
> increased.

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]

> It's getting harder and harder to find T-Mobile top-up cards. Some
> top-up functions charge an additional fee -- one year I had to do one of
> those. Last year I bought codes from Walmart, which was painless.
> Ralph's supermarket just added a rack of phone-specific gift cards,
> which includes both $10 and $25 T-Mobile cards.

Can't you top-up on-line (on a website) or with an app? Top-up cards
are *so* last century.

In article <sodc4u.ldk.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > It's getting harder and harder to find T-Mobile top-up cards. Some
> > top-up functions charge an additional fee -- one year I had to do one of
> > those. Last year I bought codes from Walmart, which was painless.
> > Ralph's supermarket just added a rack of phone-specific gift cards,
> > which includes both $10 and $25 T-Mobile cards.
>
> Can't you top-up on-line (on a website) or with an app? Top-up cards
> are *so* last century.

it depends on the carrier. most can do it online or on the phone itself.

for the tin-foil hat crowd, top-up cards are anonymous.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
[...]

> I'm often amazed at how chaotic and thoughtless the whole European phone
> numbering system is, but remember you had 40+ countries, each creating
> their own numbering scheme, with a phone number length that seemed
> sufficient just for that country.
>
> If the EU had existed back then there likely would have been a more
> coherent system. Europe didn't have the advantage of a dominant monopoly
> (AT&T) being able to create a system able to serve a huge area and a
> huge population, with room for expansion without the need to add more
> digits.

Exactly, there *is* no "European phone numbering system" for the
historical reasons you mention, but that doesn't mean that the whole or
its parts are "chaotic" or/and "thoughtless". I don't pretend to have
intimate knowledge of every phone numbering system in each of the
European countries, but the ones I've used are similar to ours and by no
means "chaotic" or/and "thoughtless". They're just different than yours,
which *we* consider "chaotic".

And please cut out the hoopla about "the need to add more digits". As
we've said it was *one* time non-event (and it was a single digit, not
digits).

BTW, about the "back then" time: IIRC we had some kind of war going
on and probably other things on our mind than designing a [N]ENP.

nospam wrote:

> one ring was one of the most common methods but was limited to only
> one person. other methods existed, some more legal than others.

In my youth Ma Bell forbid hooking up anything but their own equipment
to their lines. But we hams always did it anyway for our phone patches.

In my case I used a TV power transformer for an interface. The 110V
leads (capacitor isolated) to the phone lines, the high voltage leads to
the transmitter mike input, and the filament leads to the receiver's
speaker out, with appropriate transmit/receive switching in between. The
impedance didn't match exactly but was close enough to work.

When I made phone patches for the servicemen in Vietnam and other out of
the country places the phone company operator was involved as the
relatives, when not in my city, had to accept the landline charges from
me to them so it wasn't a big secret to the phone company what was
going on.

When hams wanted the service themselves they would get on the air and
make a general call for a particular location. If another ham in that
location was listening they would hook up and make the patch. I had
schedules with several hams around the country to make patches both for
me and them.

And to add icing to Ma Bell's cake, I use a telephone pole at the edge
of my back yard to hang one end of my dipole antenna...

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <sodc4u.ldk.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > It's getting harder and harder to find T-Mobile top-up cards. Some
> > > top-up functions charge an additional fee -- one year I had to do one of
> > > those. Last year I bought codes from Walmart, which was painless.
> > > Ralph's supermarket just added a rack of phone-specific gift cards,
> > > which includes both $10 and $25 T-Mobile cards.
> >
> > Can't you top-up on-line (on a website) or with an app? Top-up cards
> > are *so* last century.
>
> it depends on the carrier.

Duh! Exactly *which* part of "T-Mobile" didn't you understand?

> most can do it online or on the phone itself.

And what about *T-Mobile*?

> for the tin-foil hat crowd, top-up cards are anonymous.

You don't say!?

But to be fair, you *did* again respond to the red flag before your
eyes. We can't expect you to actually read or/and make any sense, can
we!?

In article <sodcfp$gdt$1@dont-email.me>, AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

>
> > one ring was one of the most common methods but was limited to only
> > one person. other methods existed, some more legal than others.
>
> In my youth Ma Bell forbid hooking up anything but their own equipment
> to their lines. But we hams always did it anyway for our phone patches.

officially, because they used to charge per phone extension. that
didn't stop people and unless it was extreme, they usually didn't care.

In article <sodgbe.po0.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > > It's getting harder and harder to find T-Mobile top-up cards. Some
> > > > top-up functions charge an additional fee -- one year I had to do one
> > > > of
> > > > those. Last year I bought codes from Walmart, which was painless.
> > > > Ralph's supermarket just added a rack of phone-specific gift cards,
> > > > which includes both $10 and $25 T-Mobile cards.
> > >
> > > Can't you top-up on-line (on a website) or with an app? Top-up cards
> > > are *so* last century.
> >
> > it depends on the carrier.
>
> Duh! Exactly *which* part of "T-Mobile" didn't you understand?

what part of a generalized answer do you not understand?

t-mobile is not the only carrier in the world.

t-mobile still sells top-up cards, as do other carriers.

<https://www.t-mobile.com/support/account/refill-your-prepaid-account>

nospam wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

>> In my youth Ma Bell forbid hooking up anything but their own
>> equipment to their lines. But we hams always did it anyway for our
>> phone patches.

> officially, because they used to charge per phone extension. that
> didn't stop people and unless it was extreme, they usually didn't
> care.

I would GUESS that the main reason was to prevent line damage but I
suppose it could be for financial gain as well. I screwed up on more
than one occasion and shorted and/or put an external voltage into their
lines with no service interruption. I was really glad since my folks
would have been really pissed if I broke the phone service...

In article <sode2u$qm9$1@gioia.aioe.org>, AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

> >> In my youth Ma Bell forbid hooking up anything but their own
> >> equipment to their lines. But we hams always did it anyway for our
> >> phone patches.
>
> > officially, because they used to charge per phone extension. that
> > didn't stop people and unless it was extreme, they usually didn't
> > care.
>
> I would GUESS that the main reason was to prevent line damage but I
> suppose it could be for financial gain as well.

it was for profit.

one or two extra phones isn't going to put a large enough load to cause
a problem. many extra phones will likely be noticed.

remember ringer equivalences?

> I screwed up on more
> than one occasion and shorted and/or put an external voltage into their
> lines with no service interruption.

occasional glitches aren't a problem.

> I was really glad since my folks
> would have been really pissed if I broke the phone service...

mine were :)

On 12/3/2021 6:12 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> It's getting harder and harder to find T-Mobile top-up cards. Some
>> top-up functions charge an additional fee -- one year I had to do one of
>> those. Last year I bought codes from Walmart, which was painless.
>> Ralph's supermarket just added a rack of phone-specific gift cards,
>> which includes both $10 and $25 T-Mobile cards.
>
> Can't you top-up on-line (on a website) or with an app? Top-up cards
> are *so* last century.

Yes, you can do it all on the T-Mobile website.

On 12/3/2021 7:45 AM, AJL wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>
>>> In my youth Ma Bell forbid hooking up anything but their own
>>> equipment to their lines. But we hams always did it anyway for our
>>> phone patches.
>
>> officially, because they used to charge per phone extension. that
>> didn't stop people and unless it was extreme, they usually didn't
>> care.
>
> I would GUESS that the main reason was to prevent line damage but I
> suppose it could be for financial gain as well.

It was because Ma Bell charged for extensions. The phone company could
check the ring current going to a subscriber's home and know that there
were extra, unpaid for, phones. People would disconnect the ringer on
the phone so the phone company could not detect the extension phones.

nospam wrote:

>> I would GUESS that the main reason was to prevent line damage but
>> I suppose it could be for financial gain as well.

> it was for profit.

The American way I suppose. Guess I shouldn't complain. I still get some
investment income from Ma Bell's remnants.

> remember ringer equivalences?

I didn't. Just Googled it. It made me remember that we always unhooked
the ringers from the extra (pirate) extension phones so we wouldn't get
caught.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 12/3/2021 6:12 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >> It's getting harder and harder to find T-Mobile top-up cards. Some
> >> top-up functions charge an additional fee -- one year I had to do one of
> >> those. Last year I bought codes from Walmart, which was painless.
> >> Ralph's supermarket just added a rack of phone-specific gift cards,
> >> which includes both $10 and $25 T-Mobile cards.
> >
> > Can't you top-up on-line (on a website) or with an app? Top-up cards
> > are *so* last century.
>
> Yes, you can do it all on the T-Mobile website.

Thanks, much more helpful than your lapdog.

On 12/3/2021 8:33 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/3/2021 6:12 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> It's getting harder and harder to find T-Mobile top-up cards. Some
>>>> top-up functions charge an additional fee -- one year I had to do one of
>>>> those. Last year I bought codes from Walmart, which was painless.
>>>> Ralph's supermarket just added a rack of phone-specific gift cards,
>>>> which includes both $10 and $25 T-Mobile cards.
>>>
>>> Can't you top-up on-line (on a website) or with an app? Top-up cards
>>> are *so* last century.
>>
>> Yes, you can do it all on the T-Mobile website.
>
> Thanks, much more helpful than your lapdog.

Huh? Who is my lapdog?