On 2023-10-17 13:21, Wally J wrote:
> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote
>
>> On 10/17/23 14:50, Wally J wrote:
>>> OLD PLAN:
>>> ~$120 (doesn't include Netflix or AAA or AppleTV or CN/ME calls)
>>> NEW PLAN:
>>> ~$190 (adds Netflix & CN/ME calls and AAA/AppleTV for short time)
>>
>> Bundling is the worst, especially for services I don't use (Netflix/AppleTV)
>
> My wife shares Netflix with the kids who pay for it and give her the login
> information so we don't need that - plus I always put the women in the
> family on AAA (the boys have to learn how to change tires & fix engines!).
> <https://clark.com/cell-phones/t-mobile-forced-plan-migration/>

So you advocate theft and male chauvinism...

On 10/17/2023 2:39 PM, badgolferman wrote:

<snip>

> The article said affected people were notified. They’re not taking
> advantage of ignorant people.

Apparently, the notification consists of sending the person an SMS or an
e-mail.

If they really wanted to not take advantage of people then they would
make the plan change an "opt-in." But that would result in very few
subscribers moving to a more expensive plan so that's not what they are
doing.

The goal is to increase ARPU by taking advantage of people's belief that
if they do nothing then they won't be moved to a more expensive plan.
Remember, T-Mobile made a big deal about their "Price Lock Guarantee."

They should be sending out a real letter, with the outside of the
envelope having the text "Do Not Discard. Your T-Mobile Plan Will Change
to a More Expensive Plan if You do Not Explicitly Opt Out."

This just screams "Class Action Lawsuit" because of T-Mobile's earlier
"Price Lock Guarantee." You can just see them in court: "Your honor, we
did not increase the price of anyone's plan, we simply moved them to a
more expensive plan after they didn't tell us not to do this." I imagine
that the class action attorneys already preparing their television ads
to go along with the Camp Lejune and mesothelioma ads.

T-Mobile is not alone in these sleazy tactics. All three carriers
advertised rates that included an auto-pay discount and then changed how
customers can do auto-pay and still get that discount. Verizon did this
first, then T-Mobile, and finally AT&T followed suit on October 2nd, 2023.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote

> T-Mobile is not alone in these sleazy tactics.

I will agree with anyone who has good data and decent assessments.

In this case, I fully agree with Steve that T-Mobile appears to be pulling
a fast one on us, as he correctly notes the opt out tactic is intended to
catch people who don't know any better (or who don't act quickly enough).

Grace, (apparently on my T-Mobile "personal team of experts") started her
spiel with me by saying T-mobile was "moving grandfathered plans to a newer
and better plan with more benefits"...

When I told her to cut the crap and just explain the plans, there was a
moment of silence from her, and I had to ask "are you still there?".

Point is that the new plan is 70 bucks per month more than my old plan,
where the only permanent "benefits" were Netflix and free calls in Canada
and Mexico.

The temporary benefits were Apple TV (what the heck is that?) for six
months & AAA for 1 person for 1 year (which normally costs ~$50 per year).

I'm not sure how much Netflix is as my wife uses my daughter's account.

Most of the Apple people probably know all about Apple TV so maybe they can
tell me if that's a big deal or not.

How much is AppleTV worth anyway for six months?

On 10/17/23 19:52, sms wrote:
> This just screams "Class Action Lawsuit" because of T-Mobile's earlier
> "Price Lock Guarantee." You can just see them in court: "Your honor, we
> did not increase the price of anyone's plan, we simply moved them to a
> more expensive plan after they didn't tell us not to do this." I imagine
> that the class action attorneys already preparing their television ads
> to go along with the Camp Lejune and mesothelioma ads.

You're not thinking creative enough.

"Your honor, the value offered by the new plan is equivalent to that of
the old plan, factoring in the value of the additional perks. Therefore,
the price of their plans was never changed, merely new perks were
bundled with it."
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 11:07:34 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Note that the statement of "...consider a cheaper cell phone service
>provider that runs on the same network..." leaves out the key issue of
>domestic (and international) roaming. An MVNO like Mint or Tello has a
>lot less geographic coverage, both domestic and international, than
>T-Mobile or Metro.

I don't know anything about international coverage, but regarding
Mint's (I use Mint) domestic coverage, how can it be a lot less than
T-Mobile's since it uses T-Mobile's network?

On 10/18/2023 7:04 AM, Ken Blake wrote:

<snip>

> I don't know anything about international coverage, but regarding
> Mint's (I use Mint) domestic coverage, how can it be a lot less than
> T-Mobile's since it uses T-Mobile's network?

T-Mobile provides a lot of domestic roaming. Their MVNOs, other than
Google-Fi do not. With Mint, Tello, Hello, etc., you get no coverage at
all in places Alaska, as well as no coverage in many of the more rural
areas of the western U.S..

The T-Mobile domestic roaming includes very little data, 200MB per
billing cycle, but at least you get unlimited SMS and voice. Data
roaming costs T-Mobile a lot of money so they have to limit it.
Google-Fi doesn't have that domestic roaming data limit, they charge for
data on their by the GB plans of course, but on their unlimited plans
there is no extra charge.

But if you never travel to the areas where T-Mobile doesn't have a
native network then you would not notice any difference.

Also, interestingly enough, Metro provides the same off-network roaming
as T-Mobile postpaid, while Verizon's Visible service (and all the
Tracfone brands), and AT&T's Cricket service, provide very little
off-network roaming. But since the Verizon and AT&T domestic network is
much larger the need for that roaming is less.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 11:33:09 -0700, sms wrote:
>> I don't know anything about international coverage, but regarding
>> Mint's (I use Mint) domestic coverage, how can it be a lot less than
>> T-Mobile's since it uses T-Mobile's network?
>
> T-Mobile provides a lot of domestic roaming.

Aren't you on record for often saying T-Mobile roaming is very few towers?

On 10/18/2023 1:22 PM, Patrick wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 11:33:09 -0700, sms wrote:
>>> I don't know anything about international coverage, but regarding
>>> Mint's (I use Mint) domestic coverage, how can it be a lot less than
>>> T-Mobile's since it uses T-Mobile's network?
>>
>> T-Mobile provides a lot of domestic roaming.
>
> Aren't you on record for often saying T-Mobile roaming is very few towers?

No.

The issue is that if T-Mobile has a network presence in an area then
they don't allow roaming even in spots with no coverage. That is the
issue in the San Francisco Bay Area. If you're on T-Mobile then you
can't roam onto AT&T or Verizon (other than 911 calls) even though
T-Mobile lacks any coverage in many of the less populated areas.

For example, here is the San Mateo/Santa Cruz County coast
<https://i.imgur.com/QOqnAVP.png>. On AT&T and T-Mobile coverage is much
poorer than on Verizon. Some people say, "well almost no one lives
there" and that's true. But it's a very popular area to visit and drive
through.

We often stay at the Yosemite West development just outside the Yosemite
park boundary (you have to get there from inside the park), see
<https://i.imgur.com/9zJhPUq.png>. Being on Verizon was really helpful
when we arrived, in a snowstorm, and they hadn't left the key for our
condo rental. If we had been on AT&T or T-Mobile it would have been a
long drive to find a pay phone. This is an area of California that was
covered by Golden State Cellular which was purchased by Verizon.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 11:33:09 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 10/18/2023 7:04 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> I don't know anything about international coverage, but regarding
>> Mint's (I use Mint) domestic coverage, how can it be a lot less than
>> T-Mobile's since it uses T-Mobile's network?
>
>T-Mobile provides a lot of domestic roaming. Their MVNOs, other than
>Google-Fi do not. With Mint, Tello, Hello, etc., you get no coverage at
>all in places Alaska, as well as no coverage in many of the more rural
>areas of the western U.S..
>
>The T-Mobile domestic roaming includes very little data, 200MB per
>billing cycle, but at least you get unlimited SMS and voice. Data
>roaming costs T-Mobile a lot of money so they have to limit it.
>Google-Fi doesn't have that domestic roaming data limit, they charge for
>data on their by the GB plans of course, but on their unlimited plans
>there is no extra charge.
>
>But if you never travel to the areas where T-Mobile doesn't have a
>native network then you would not notice any difference.

OK, thanks. I never travel at all, anymore.

On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:43:16 -0700, sms wrote:
>>> T-Mobile provides a lot of domestic roaming.
>>
>> Aren't you on record for often saying T-Mobile roaming is very few towers?
>
> No.
>
> The issue is that if T-Mobile has a network presence in an area then
> they don't allow roaming even in spots with no coverage. That is the
> issue in the San Francisco Bay Area. If you're on T-Mobile then you
> can't roam onto AT&T or Verizon (other than 911 calls) even though
> T-Mobile lacks any coverage in many of the less populated areas.

OK, thanks. I never travel at all, anymore.

On 10/19/2023 7:49 AM, Ken Blake wrote:

<snip>

> OK, thanks. I never travel at all, anymore.

Based on that response, and Patrick's identical response, T-Mobile
should create a marketing campaign promoting their service to people
that don't ever leave their own, covered area.

In my area, most people do travel at least around the greater Bay Area
where coverage greatly varies when you leave the core urban area of each
county. I can drive ten minutes into the surrounding foothills of my
town and be in an area with no AT&T or T-Mobile coverage, according to
both the carrier's maps as well as the FCC maps.

The reason for the coverage differences goes back many decades when GTE
Mobilnet, which morphed into Verizon, was the only carrier that spent
the money to put up towers in those areas. By the time AT&T got their
act together there were restrictions on cell tower placement for
aesthetic reasons.

Pac Bell Mobile, which ended up selling to T-Mobile after the SBC AT&T
merger, was very late to the game and never made any attempt at more
rural coverage, plus they were hampered by being at 1900 MHz.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards