Jump to content

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


joshuam

Recommended Posts

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

 

attachicon.gif IMG_6189.PNG

attachicon.gif IMG_6190.PNG

attachicon.gif 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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

attachicon.gif IMG_6189.PNG

attachicon.gif IMG_6190.PNG

attachicon.gif 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • Today I was driving over in Bothell/Kenmore area. I noticed the site which used to host Sprint eNB 745953 (where Waynita Way NE turns into 100th Ave NE) before it was fully decommissioned last year is now hosting all new T-Mobile gear. The gear isn't live yet but is fully installed. My guess is they plan to decommission the T-Mobile B2/B66 (enB 84647) only site a few blocks up the hill. This is a great move because decommissioning that old site would reduce interference with eNB 84740/175124. At the same time, the new location should notably improve coverage in the geographically shielded area along Waynita/100th.  The weird thing is I can't find a permit for this anywhere!
    • Mint and Ultra: Welcome to the T-Mobile Family! https://www.t-mobile.com/news/business/t-mobile-closes-acquisition-mint-and-ultra-mobile
    • https://www.t-mobile.com/2023-annual-report Most items s4gru members will be aware of, but an interesting read.
    • I've now seen 100 MHz n77 from SoftBank and 100 MHz n78 from NTT. NTT seems to be a bit better south of Osaka, though in some cases it drops down to B19 LTE as some areas around here are pretty rural. SoftBank has n77 around, but it's flakey enough that I switched eSIMs earlier this morning.
    • I'm currently typing this from a bullet train headed from Tokyo to Osaka. Using a roaming eSIM rather than T-Mobile as it's a lot cheaper, but I'll start with T-Mobile's roaming experience. Since I have a business line, I can't add data packs online, so I'm just using the 256 kbps baseline service you get by default. That service runs on Softank 4G. SoftBank has a well-built-out LTE network though, with plenty of B41, falling back to B1/3/8 as needed. 5G roaming from T-Mobile doesn't appear to exist though. I've seen 20+10 MHz B41 when I've looked, generally speaking. WiFi calling works well, and voice calls over LTE work fine too (I forgot to turn WiFi back on after doing some testing, so I expect my bill to be a dollar more next month). I want to say I even got HD voice over the cell network for the VoLTE call I did. I have a bunch of eSIMs and a couple of physical SIMs to try out. I've gotten the eSIMs up and running, but last I checked the physical SIM wasn't working even after activation so I'll run through eSIMs for the moment and update this thread with pSIM info and details on not-Tokyo in the coming days. First off, there's US Mobile's complimentary East Asia eSIM (5GB) that I grabbed before my unlimited plan Stateside expired. That SIM uses SIM Club, routing through Singapore, running on SoftBank LTE and 5G. I've seen 40 MHz n77, as well as 10x10 n28, and have seen download speeds in excess of 200 Mbps with uploads of more than 50 Mbps, though typical speeds are slower. Routing is via Equinix/Packet.net. 5G coverage is rather spotty, but LTE is plenty fast enough; either my phone doesn't want to use the 5G band combos that have more coverage or 5G coverage is just spottier here than in the US (at least on T-Mibile). Latency is as low as 95ms to sites in Singapore (usually closer to 120ms), which is pretty great considering the 3300 mi between Tokyo and Singapore. Next there's Ubigi. It also routes through Singapore via Transatel (despite being owned by NTT), and sites on top of NTT docomo's network. I didn't see NTT 5G in Tokyo when I tested it, but since then I've seen 10x10 n28, and have seen B1/B3/B19 on the LTE side. So far it's not the fastest thing out there, but I'm guessing coverage will be a little better...or maybe not. This was $17 for 10GB. Latency is a bit higher to Singapore, but still under 150ms it seems. Then there's Airalo, which was the cheapest when I bought it at $9 for 10GB. It also routes through Singapore (on Singtel), but on my S24 I have my pick of KDDI (au) or SoftBank. KDDI has extensive B41 coverage and I've seen 20+20 with UL CA. While waiting for the train at HND Terminal 3 (Keikyu line) I hit 250+ Mbps down and 10+ Mbps up...over LTE...with pretty respectable latency numbers (not much above 100ms). This is in adition to supporting SoftBank, also on LTE (my S24 defaulted to KDDI, while my wife's Pixel 8 defaulted to SoftBank and didn't seem to want to connect to KDDI). Of the various carriers mentioned, I'd say this was the best pick, though prices have bumped back up to $18 for the 10GB plan...but it's probably still what I'd pick if I had to pick just one carrier. Then there's Saily, which uses Truphone out of Hong Kong. I haven't used this as much, as I only grabbed 3GB for $7. It runs on NTT but doesn't seem to have 5G access and doesn't seem to have as good speeds. Yes, Hong Kong is way closer to Japan, but latency didn't seem to be any better, at ~150ms. In all cases, I've had reception even in train tunnels and even at high speed on the bullet train, on all three carriers I've tried (I don't think I'll be able to play with a Rakuten SIM, which is rather disappointing). There have been cases where service has degraded, but it looks like you'd have reasonable cell service no matter which of the big three carriers you picked...and since T-Mobile roams on one of them, that's good enough if you're content to buy day passes.
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...