Marcelo Claure, Town Hall Meetings, New Family Share Pack Plan, Unlimited Individual Plan, Discussion Thread

[tybo31316]

Maybe for you. $90 to $100 for 2GB of data and unlimited talk/text is not cheap in my book.

 

IMG_6189.PNG

IMG_6190.PNG

IMG_6191.PNG

That's expensive AF. I don't think that 2 wireless companies are going to merge. It will be Comcast and Wireless or Dish and Wireless to compete with AT&T.

 

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

Maybe for you. $90 to $100 for 2GB of data and unlimited talk/text is not cheap in my book.

 

Multiply those figures by the 0.75 exchange rate.

 

AJ

[derrph]

Maybe for you. $90 to $100 for 2GB of data and unlimited talk/text is not cheap in my book.

 

IMG_6189.PNG

IMG_6190.PNG

IMG_6191.PNG

Thats expensive AF for 2gb. Thats crazy how they tout that as shareable if it's in the US but I think if it's converted it's like $70 I think. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RAvirani]

Multiply those figures by the 0.75 exchange rate.

 

AJ

I assumed everyone knew the exchange rate. Maybe that wasn't such a great assumption...

[caspar347]

So that's still around double the cost of 2GB+unlimited talk and text prepaid plans here and around 1.5x the cost of equivalent 2GB share plans here, right?

 

I don't think that's guaranteed to happen if a merger is allowed, but I'd be surprised if it didn't. I'm rather conflicted the merger, but it's looking much more feasible now than back in 2014.

[WiWavelength]

Maybe for you. $90 to $100 for 2GB of data and unlimited talk/text is not cheap in my book.

 

Maybe, even exchange rate aside, many goods and services are more expensive in Canada.  How is that for a revelation?  Now, hand me my Nobel Prize in Economics.

 

AJ

[RAvirani]

Maybe, even exchange rate aside, many goods and services are more expensive in Canada. How is that for a revelation? Now, hand me my Nobel Prize in Economics.

 

AJ

Maybe, in that case, an argument relying on a comparison between the telecom market in the United States and the telecom market in Canada is flawed. Must say though, we've had quite a few spectacular revelations today.

[Arysyn]

I've heard alot from people online over the years about how expensive Canadian wireless rates are and how they think its linked to there being "limited" competition, which they often bring up when I talk about how I believe there ought to be two or three national carriers here in the U.S.

 

I always tell them that three national carriers in Canada is too much for just 10 million wireless subscribers. That is why their prices are so high because of the land mass coverage versus the money the Canadian wireless carriers are able to make based on those limited amount of customers they split between the three carriers already servicing that huge amount of area, including all the expense to cover it and keep those networks updated/upgraded.

 

I believe having a competitive wireless landscape in Canada just isn't possible while also providing decent rates, unless Canada were to have a regional system of cooperative carriers with reasonable roaming agreements. Or just nationalize a single national wireless carrier, but that itself of course has its drawbacks.

 

Things here in the U.S. are very different where there is much less land mass than in Canada, with over 200 million wireless suscribers. There really doesn't need to be a regional carrier system here, and with fewer carriers here to collect more cash, the networks could be improved quickly while rates kept low. The bigger problem in the U.S. is spectrum to keep all the subscribers having decent speeds, especially during congestion. Yet, the U.S. government sells tepid amounts at exorbitant rates, making the need for consolidation even more important in order for carriers to make enough money to have both enough spectrum and also enough money to spend on network upkeep.

[RAvirani]

I always tell them that three national carriers in Canada is too much for just 10 million wireless subscribers. That is why their prices are so high because of the land mass coverage versus the money the Canadian wireless carriers are able to make based on those limited amount of customers they split between the three carriers already servicing that huge amount of area, including all the expense to cover it and keep those networks updated/upgraded.

Just a quick something I'm not sure you are aware of: there are actually only two national networks in Canada: Rogers and Bell/Telus. Bell and Telus share a single network and the two companies maintain/upgrade different parts of the network. So really, Canada is an example of the most limited form of competition (with only two competing entities) possible without a monopoly.

 

Additionally, coverage area in Canada is not all that large. Most of Canada is uncovered by mobile networks. Here are the links to the Rogers and Bell/Telus coverage maos respectively:

http://www.rogers.com/consumer/wireless/network-coverage

http://www.telus.com/en/bc/mobility/network/coverage-map.jsp

[kg4icg]

I've heard alot from people online over the years about how expensive Canadian wireless rates are and how they think its linked to there being "limited" competition, which they often bring up when I talk about how I believe there ought to be two or three national carriers here in the U.S.

 

I always tell them that three national carriers in Canada is too much for just 10 million wireless subscribers. That is why their prices are so high because of the land mass coverage versus the money the Canadian wireless carriers are able to make based on those limited amount of customers they split between the three carriers already servicing that huge amount of area, including all the expense to cover it and keep those networks updated/upgraded.

 

I believe having a competitive wireless landscape in Canada just isn't possible while also providing decent rates, unless Canada were to have a regional system of cooperative carriers with reasonable roaming agreements. Or just nationalize a single national wireless carrier, but that itself of course has its drawbacks.

 

Things here in the U.S. are very different where there is much less land mass than in Canada, with over 200 million wireless suscribers. There really doesn't need to be a regional carrier system here, and with fewer carriers here to collect more cash, the networks could be improved quickly while rates kept low. The bigger problem in the U.S. is spectrum to keep all the subscribers having decent speeds, especially during congestion. Yet, the U.S. government sells tepid amounts at exorbitant rates, making the need for consolidation even more important in order for carriers to make enough money to have both enough spectrum and also enough money to spend on network upkeep.

Just one little problem, only 50% of Canada is covered by cellular, the wilderness area is covered under Satellite phone service or two way radio, hf band mostly. So your conclusion needs a little more research.

 

Sent from my LGLS996 using Tapatalk

[Arysyn]

Just one little problem, only 50% of Canada is covered by cellular, the wilderness area is covered under Satellite phone service or two way radio, hf band mostly. So your conclusion needs a little more research.

 

Sent from my LGLS996 using Tapatalk

People still travel through those wilderness areas though, and sadly seem to expect there to be cellular service. I think in these cases people really ought to be dependant on satellite, as it does give better coverage.

[Arysyn]

Just a quick something I'm not sure you are aware of: there are actually only two national networks in Canada: Rogers and Bell/Telus. Bell and Telus share a single network and the two companies maintain/upgrade different parts of the network. So really, Canada is an example of the most limited form of competition (with only two competing entities) possible without a monopoly.

 

Additionally, coverage area in Canada is not all that large. Most of Canada is uncovered by mobile networks. Here are the links to the Rogers and Bell/Telus coverage maos respectively:

http://www.rogers.com/consumer/wireless/network-coverage

http://www.telus.com/en/bc/mobility/network/coverage-map.jsp

Yeah, most people have told me there are three carriers, though it sounds better for cooperation to exist as you mentioned between Bell and Telus.

 

I can't remember for sure, and I'll search more when I have some extra time, but I heard once about sone upstart in Canada similar to T-Mobile in its approach to customers.

[WiWavelength]

Maybe, in that case, an argument relying on a comparison between the telecom market in the United States and the telecom market in Canada is flawed.

 

No shit, Sherlock.

 

AJ

[imex99]

With the Presidential inauguration coming up and Sprint touting 3xCA, will phones get update prior to the inauguration?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeffDTD]

If the merger happen your going to be paying the same price as you are for Verizon

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

 

I pay Verizon roughly $220 a month for 26GB (24GB+2bonus) for 3 lines, inclusive of device financing and taxes. This includes an employer discount, same percentage as I'm eligible for on Sprint.  They charge me a flat 7% tax. No surcharges, autopay fees, or any other extra fluff charges.  We make do and usually have data left over.  

 

Not counting the 1 year of free credits sprint is currently offering lines 3-5 on an unlimited family plan ( Its good for 12 months- 1/2 the length of a contract or device financing plan, not reflective of even a typical commitment long discount) The 3 lines on Sprint would cost me $130+devices 25+25+10 = $190.00.   Cool.  But I haven't forgotten about Sprint's surcharges and administrative fees.  I recall them more than doubling the actual taxes I paid when I had sprint.  The pricing gap becomes very small between Sprint and Verizon in my case. 

 

My point?  If I could pay sprint the same I pay to verizon for "unlimited" throttled data on the combined assets and coverage of Sprint and Tmobile, I would. Project Fi is proof that user experience can be great.  Its really not about having a network thats identical to Verizon. Its about having a more seamless experience.   I'd also argue there is very little disparity in pricing now for higher demand users,  only what we get for the price we pay.  

[tyroned3222]

I pay Verizon roughly $220 a month for 26GB (24GB+2bonus) for 3 lines, inclusive of device financing and taxes. This includes an employer discount, same percentage as I'm eligible for on Sprint. They charge me a flat 7% tax. No surcharges, autopay fees, or any other extra fluff charges. We make do and usually have data left over.

 

Not counting the 1 year of free credits sprint is currently offering lines 3-5 on an unlimited family plan ( Its good for 12 months- 1/2 the length of a contract or device financing plan, not reflective of even a typical commitment long discount) The 3 lines on Sprint would cost me $130+devices 25+25+10 = $190.00. Cool. But I haven't forgotten about Sprint's surcharges and administrative fees. I recall them more than doubling the actual taxes I paid when I had sprint. The pricing gap becomes very small between Sprint and Verizon in my case.

 

My point? If I could pay sprint the same I pay to verizon for "unlimited" throttled data on the combined assets and coverage of Sprint and Tmobile, I would. Project Fi is proof that user experience can be great. Its really not about having a network thats identical to Verizon. Its about having a more seamless experience. I'd also argue there is very little disparity in pricing now for higher demand users, only what we get for the price we pay.

I agree! This is why T-mobiles new un carrier move is that much more dangerous to the competition. T-mobiles brand is getting stronger and stronger quick. T-Mobile won't need a merger at the rate they are going

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[derrph]

I agree! This is why T-mobiles new un carrier move is that much more dangerous to the competition. T-mobiles brand is getting stronger and stronger quick. T-Mobile won't need a merger at the rate they are going

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. They really don't need to merge with anyone besides for the need of spectrum. But based on what they have I really commend them for stretching it out in all ways and are really Making it work.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[caspar347]

Another site here with new B41 gear! 2017 is looking good!

 

Edit: turns out it's a mini macro setup, not an 8T8R.

[grapkoski]

Another site here with new B41 gear! 2017 is looking good!

 

8T8R or mini macro?

[Dkoellerwx]

8T8R or mini macro?

8T8R

 

Sent from my LG G5

[Arysyn]

I usually hate to credit T-Mobile after my generally bad experience with them over the years, despite a few good things they did for me, well only to then mess up other stuff. However now that I'm very happy with AT&T and thankful to some S4GRU members for steering me towards AT&T, I can be more objective to what T-Mobile does, which this tax inclusion is a very good thing, I'll admit.

 

Despite my not taking much issue against unlimited data, as I see it as a good option to have around, I'd prefer there be a larger package of data at lesser rates, basically lowering the cost of data instead of having cheaper unlimited, but thats just my opinion.

 

It seems that the deprioritization rate is headed towards 30gb on these unlimited plans. I wonder why not just offer a 30gb plan for $95 monthly with taxes included, then offer an option for $3 per extra 1gb for high-speed data, or an unlimited data thereafter at reduced speeds around 3mbps. I read from alot of people online hoping this recent uncarrier announcement would have doubled the video stream to that, allowing for 720p video.

[Tengen31]

I usually hate to credit T-Mobile after my generally bad experience with them over the years, despite a few good things they did for me, well only to then mess up other stuff. However now that I'm very happy with AT&T and thankful to some S4GRU members for steering me towards AT&T, I can be more objective to what T-Mobile does, which this tax inclusion is a very good thing, I'll admit.

 

Despite my not taking much issue against unlimited data, as I see it as a good option to have around, I'd prefer there be a larger package of data at lesser rates, basically lowering the cost of data instead of having cheaper unlimited, but thats just my opinion.

 

It seems that the deprioritization rate is headed towards 30gb on these unlimited plans. I wonder why not just offer a 30gb plan for $95 monthly with taxes included, then offer an option for $3 per extra 1gb for high-speed data, or an unlimited data thereafter at reduced speeds around 3mbps. I read from alot of people online hoping this recent uncarrier announcement would have doubled the video stream to that, allowing for 720p video.

Why don't you have Sprint?

 

Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk

[caspar347]

8T8R

 

Sent from my LG G5

^^^ just to confirm

 

See next post by me in this thread. It's actually a mini macro.

[RedSpark]

With the Presidential inauguration coming up and Sprint touting 3xCA, will phones get update prior to the inauguration?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We can only hope. Sprint has deployed 3CA on sites in DC. Sprint is also bringing 3CA COWs for additional capacity.

 

http://newsroom.sprint.com/blogs/sprint-perspectives/sprints-dc-network-ready-to-support-a-great-american-tradition-the-presidential-inauguration.htm

 

Hopefully there's a peripheral benefit for 2CA devices from the third carrier being deployed.

[Arysyn]

Why don't you have Sprint?

 

Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk

I had Sprint on a few occasions while my mother kept our T-Mobile account active throughout the years. My tries using Sprint were prior to carrier aggregation being activated. I ended up leaving Sprint due to both device issues and bad signal reception/speed issues while connected to PCS.

 

Granted, I loved having Sprint when I was connected to band 41, especially during rush hour when it ran multiple times better than T-Mobile did for me during rush hour. However, connecting to the 5x5 PCS at the time was a miserable experience, even when it dropped to 3G. As many people here mention often, Sprint would be amazing if only they got band 41 on more towers. I'm in the Chicago area where Sprint is known to be great at, and my experience with Sprint was prior to the 10x10 PCS upgrade from 5x5 and before carrier aggregation, so it might be much better here now.

 

Yet, I couldn't resist the offers mentioned here by a few members of AT&T's 22% off deal using the AT&T Unlimited Data plan. I may try Sprint again in the future though if it merges with one of its competitors or gets band 41 up alot more.