Arysyn

Very good post, RedSpark. Quite kind of you to inform us of these rate plan changes. I use to keep track of them, but then sometime along the way I just lost interest in how the carriers were pricing them. Of course, that hasn't changed my interest in these rate plans regarding my personal opinions relating to the best type of rate plan for a particular carrier at any given time and popularity of service offerings. Still, I continue hoping at least one of the carriers does something good with their rate plans. Anyways, here are some of my thoughts regarding the recent Verizon rate plan changes : I like that the rate plan now starts at $75 monthly and now includes unlimited hotspot and tethering for data. I greatly support these pricing decisions. However, I definitely do not happen to like the automatic deprioritization, at all, in any way, shape, or form. I'm especially glad to have kept T-Mobile, rather than having made the switch to Verizon as I was planning on doing some time ago. Additionally, knowing that taxes and fees are included in the monthly rate with T-Mobile, is a great free inclusion that is followed along (currently), 32gb of non-deprioritized data. Although, I'm now suspecting that deprioritization is going to be possible regardless of data usage. Concerning the video streaming quality limits, this is very bad, and very scary Verizon now is doing this, especially after being such strong defenders of quality over the years. Now that Verizon is limiting video streaming worse than Sprint and AT&T, this opens up the possibilities of other carriers doing the same. I've said this here alot lately, but I really think it would be best to scrap all of these various limits down to just one simple speed cap in a format which progressively increases the sped the more that is paid for service, and market the pricing based on a particular plan's potential speed and price point. Example : Unlimited data, text, voice, and tethering up to the speedcap of selected plan. $15 monthly account charge (includes taxes and fees) plus $15 monthly per line charge. Service Charges (Must Select One per line) -Speeds up to- : 3mbps (480p typical) $15 monthly, 6mbps (720p typical) $30 monthly, 9mbps (1080p typical) $45 monthly, 12mbps (1440p typical) $60 monthly Otherwise, I really don't see how 720p video stream limits are going to be accepted well by Verizon customers. This is a great opportunity for Sprint and T-Mobile to do some clever marketing and win big getting customers away from Verizon.

Well, my guess is based on some commented on there about Prince Royce, who I understand is a musician of some sort. As I've mentioned before many times here on S4GRU, I don't follow, pay attention, nor participate in popular culture in any way. I'm leery of documented history and even written accounts/perspectives of things, so I'm not even going to try discussing the merits of having a popular musician involved with Sprint, other than I think it would be better for Sprint to stick with marketing based on its network's technical merits, rather than having people buy in because some celebrity figure endorses Sprint. Perhaps Sprint is going to have a concert with this Prince Royce in making n announcement of a new promo. I wouldn't doubt Sprint may follow my suggestion of having postpaid service start at two lines, then having a really good pricing point to start it at, which I think it could be $75 monthly. Since Sprint is marketing this as "Live Unlimited", I'm thinking that Sprint will end having limited tethering data, and change it to being unlimited at 3G speed, with a 9mbps option available at some price point. Speaking of 9mbps, I think more service features likely will be bumped up to that speed as an ideal streaming/tethering speed option to work well with a greater unlimited data plan. We'll see what Sprint offers here. Of course, it may just be another non-technical music promotion deal.

Knowing the V20 was released with Android N, normally I'd agree with you. However, LG made a pretty big deal last year about the V20 being released with N, yet still have made no comment about the LG V30 being released with O. I'm thinking perhaps since LG got the contract to make the larger, more popular Pixel XL this year, the Pixel XL2, maybe Google told LG not to release O on the V30 until after the Pixel gets released. Regardless, I won't be purchasing the V30 if the Plus version has more features than just added memory and storage.

I'm very happy about Google's decision to name this version of their Android OS "Oreo". I never liked the Nougat name, and have been looking forward to Android 8. Its a decision that may lead me to getting a Pixel XL2 over the LG V30. While I'm patiently waiting on more information regarding the V30, if LG indeed is coming out with a "Plus" version of the V30 only for South Korea, if there are plenty more features for the Plus I can't get with the regular V30, that may make the decision for me. btw, I love Oreo cookies, especially in Cookies n' Cream ice cream.

fyi, Android Oreo. I figured this even before Nougat was named :

I'm curious if Nibiru is going to knock out cell service here on earth.????

As I mentioned to RedSpark, it depends on what these stores will be like. It'll be wasteful for Sprint to add more stores the way they've been for years, until recently with the store example I gave of the Sprint store on Roosevelt Road. Back when I described the store here on S4GRU, someone here told me that its Sprint's new model, which is great if Sprint uses this for at least most of these new stores. I'm going to try getting back out to that store and take some photos of it or showing here sometime soon. Anyways, I don't think having many larger stores really are necessary. Focusing online retail is much more important. Sprint could save money not only to spend on their network, but also to put into promotions with services that are popular. Not like the Pokemon deal, but tie-ins that don't require Sprint to spend millions or billions invested in stock either. Do some sort of deal with Netflix or Amazon. Its even better than the sports sponsorships too. Really all Sprint needs to do is smart, intelligent marketing and promotions (I suggest bringing back Malcolm McDowell and James Earl Jones for video ads), spend money on network deployment and densification, along with having great pricing. I suggest Sprint change the streaming speed limit to 9mbps for both video streaming and gaming, while upping the audio streaming speed to a maximum of 3mbps. Also, Sprint could be the first carrier to do away with individual lines on postpaid service. Sprint could advertise that, with the starting price at $75 monthly for two lines, both with unlimited 3G tethering. Additional lines for $30 monthly each. Then simplify add-on service pricing at a flat $15 monthly each, such as $15 monthly full phone insurance for all lines on an account (up to five lines), each smartphone lease, unlimited 4G tethering each device (up to 9mbps), an international voice/data package, etc.

Hopefully these stores follow the same/similar small quick stop -in design that the store on Roosevelt Road in Lombard, Illinois is in appearance and in size. Otherwise, they're just wasting money on so many stores that are big, costly retail ripoffs for greedy commercial landlords.

I have heard of situations similar to kct's in the past, Jonathan. I wouldn't discount this possibly happening, and I can tell you kct is an honest, loyal member here on S4GRU. So, I believe him. However, I'm not trying to suggest this was some sort of deliberate sabotage by Sprint. As it happens with other carriers, it often is a misunderstanding. For instance, Comcast tech specialist was here at my home earlier this week trying to fix this internet issue I've been having for several weeks. This was the first tech Comcast sent to here who actually seemed to care and was very nice talking with me about different stuff. One of the things he told me, which was brought up when my mother couldn't just have something changed she needed to do on the account over the phone, was that customers no longer can just switch plans, make changes, etc., over the phone with an operator, without a signature or authorization confirmation through their account or registered email. He mentioned this because too many customers were complaining they didn't give authorization to the operator to make changes. So now, there is this added verification step Comcast now requires. Wireless carriers probably should implement the same system to prevent this from happening with their business.

Actually, you'd be surprised, AJ. When I've mentioned to T-Mobile a few times about my history reading up on T-Mobile using TmoNews, it helps sometimes to change an operator's tone from thinking your just an average, ordinary, know little about the company customer, into taking you a bit more seriously. If kct decides to call Sprint, likely they'll start off talking to him like that as well. Now, its possible mentioning this may not do any good, like you said, but it depends. Its worth a try.

Hi kct1975., There are a few things you could do, which you need to consider. If the new plan will save you money and you don't feel up to a battle against Sprint, then perhaps you should keep the plan and just deal with it. However, as you've been a great, long-time member here on S4GRU (One I have much respect for, btw), which in part shows you've been very loyal to Sprint while remaining a Sprint customer for quite some time, I think this deserves some outrage on your behalf. Any carrier, not just Sprint, who would arbitrarily change a customer's plan without their permission, particularly since this isn't a case where you were abusing data on their network to have them move you after sending you warning messages, is a very bad action on their behalf. My suggestion would be is to call Sprint and demand their executive response/retentions department. Do not waste your energy and time explaining the situation to normal cs. Tell the retentions about your history as a long-term Sprint customer, how you are a member of the world's best Sprint enthusiast website, S4GRU, your help in promoting Sprint, how much you've spent on Sprint over the years, and of course, what has happened. Most likely the person will be helpful getting you back on the other plan, along with some substantial credits/discounts. If they don't, or seem at all difficult towards you, get someone else on the phone to talk with you. If needbe, tell them you may switch to T-Mobile. That should do the trick. To everyone else, I'm not bashing Sprint here. I realize this happens with other carriers to, and I'd have the same advice in any similar case involving any one of them.

I've been seeing alot of Sprint ads online lately, which is good they are marketing online more, not being so focused on tv ads. Not that Sprint isn't doing tv ads or shouldn't be, but I think online ads are a better investment, despite many people having ad blockers. FYI, I use an ad blocker on my computer and I was using one back on my Android device when I had one. Unfortunately, the ad blocker I use isn't available on my Lumia nor on my tv internet, which is why I'm seeing these ads. Anyways, these ads are for various Sprint deals, one of them being $20 monthly per line for five lines. While that is a great deal for those who want five lines, it would be nice if Sprint introduced a two line for $75 monthly deal, which might help win over T-Mobile subscribers who have the two for $100 deal, with or without the Hookup offer. It would also be competitive to T-Mobile's 55+ Program, which costs $80 monthly if HD streaming is added on both lines. Sprint not requiring the age limit, of course.

Its very, very, ...sad.

Swapping spectrum is the best way to correct the auctions, although its true what you said about the auctions in general. However with fewer carriers, which would give carriers more spectrum, it will be easier for them to make better deals to more successfully correct any errors from the auctions. Basically what I'm referring to, is having the carriers be able to look at their spectrum holdings and figuring out the best way for all of them to organize the widest spectrum bandwidth in the most reasonable fashion amongst their competitors, giving a way towards equitable compromise, such as a three carrier market, where carriers can negotiate to where each has a good proportion of 20x20 spectrum, for instance. The other issue being each market having enough spectrum to where there isn't a huge difference between markets when a consumer of a particular carrier has service issues when they travel to another market, due to their carrier not having sufficient spectrum there. I think its important for the carriers to negotiate this situation for their customers. Regarding price... I've been hoping for pricing decrease with all the competition there already is. Problem now though is the big two carriers, AT&T and Verizon are suffering because of Unlimited Data, with their networks severely slowing down. They are going to have to increase prices in order to expand their networks, or else change the way they deliver Unlimited, if they are going to maintain or reduce prices. I'd like to see them go to a speed capped Unlimited Data plan, or else go to a reduced price per gb plan that would help boost their networks. Sprint however is not in any bad shape once they build, deploy, and densify, due to their excellent spectrum. This is why Sprint really should be more lucrative of a merger option than it seems to be. Unless of course the densification needed is being viewed as too costly by potential suitors.

Again, I'm not trying to sound like I'm supporting monopoly corporatism, just saying that clearly the direction going on sure looks that way via the reports in the media and such. Also, while I don't support cable companies getting involved in wireless, I understand why they want to, along with what their goals are for convergence with the entire technological services markets. The more a company owns, the more services they can sell in bundles, not only the more money they make but also the easier it is to keep a consumer. However as I've been saying of what I do support regardless of differing opinions I know there are here between myself and several other S4GRU members, I would like to see there be a three carrier market, either with AT&T buying T-Mobile, or Sprint buying T-Mobile, though I really want to see a tie-up between T-Mobile and Dish at least, regardless which direction T-Mobile may go in. Of course, its possible Sprint may go in a different direction, and it could eventually end up in an even tighter market competition. Yet, I don't believe for a moment that a pro-business political environment would deny a merger, unless its going to be very bad for other businesses where competitors gather to complain loudly enough. In that case, then perhaps the government would restrict a merger like that. FYI, and I've mentioned this many times here in the past... My main reason for supporting telecom mergers within wireless, is not because I'd like to see less choice. My views are not necessarily anti-consumer, or even pro-business. I simply want to see companies be able to have wider spectrum holdings and to gain more leverage where they can arrange for larger spectrum trading to mainstream their spectrum holdings across markets, essentially fixing the errors of the auction system that puts spectrum discrepancies between markets.

Perhaps could one of the S4GRU article writers put together an article with the band specifications like in the past?

There already are talks of cable companies looking to merge. After all, Comcasrt tried to buy Time Warner Cable, and while that merger failed, it was under a different political administration. I realize many here don't particularly favor mergers, and while I support certain mergers within the telecom industry, I'm not too thrilled about the prospects regarding cable company mergers and cable company interests in buying out telecom through the wireless industry. However, this doesn't mean I can ignore the news of merger rumors and developments, especially knowing the current pro-business environment currently. Therefore, just because in the past certain rules and regulations put in place to prevent certain of these acquisitions from happening and monopoly prevention measures, doesn't mean these will still be enacted to prevent them now. Things are very different in this current business climate, and I was saying this here predicting these reports would happen if the business climate were politically favorable, which it is now. Again, it doesn't necessarily mean that I favor all of these developments. Cable, as much I despise the old technology, has its purpose, but I certainly don't like the idea of cable company industry veterans taking a hold on wireless, with wireless being a future tech that is constantly advancing. I'll give credit though to Altice after hearing of their interest in Fiber though, which if anything to mix with the wireless industry, its Fiber companies.

Well, considering the various near-constantly changing reports regarding which cable company is buying the other, it would be great if Altice went for Comcast, as I'd love for there to be a Fiber developing cable company here not relying on crappy DOCSIS 3.1 that hardly works. The thing which isn't good at least with most of the cable companies right now, is their greed in wanting to extract every bit of life out of old cable, and as I've been through extreme difficulty with Comcast these past several weeks trying to get my internet speeds up to par as they were during the first few months, I've been reading other situations online from others who know more about the technical aspects of cable than I do, but I've learned alot from them and am absolutely convinced on Fiber as the way to go.

I'm not saying this is something I personally want to see happen. Actually, I'm not a fan of cable as a technology and much prefer that companies invest in Fiber. What I am saying is that cable companies, if they are interested in owning wireless, are going to first need/want to consolidate with other cable companies so they can bundle the services together as a package. Bundling is a great way for them to keep customers from switching/cancelling, due to the nature of having all services together in form of a discounted package and the hassle of switching. Of course, it isn't as simple just as that. There is going to be mergers with entertainment companies with inclusive packages as part of the overall deal also. The more the merrier for whichever companies end up owning the majority. Now again, this doesn't mean that I personally support this. If it were my choice in the matter, I'd rather cable keep out of wireless, and let wireless be a telecom and advanced fiber-owned system, perhaps with three companies, AT&T, Verizon, and a Sprint/T-Mobile/Dish combo dealing in Fiber, Satellite, etc.

I disagree. These cable companies need to merge, in order to accomplish the ultimate end goal in selling services to customers, which is the bundle. I've written alot about this here on S4GRU. Its essential for cable companies to consolidate in order to be able to sell bundles with wireless nationwide. AT&T, for example, isn't even fully bundling home internet with wireless, because they do not have national landline internet. Only Directv is being bundled with wireless, atm.

Totally understandable. I for one don't like how Masa keeps trying to sell off Sprint to another company, especially since he announced his plans for Sprint back when he was in the process of buying Sprint, which I really liked and admired his original vision. If he would have kept to it and actually invested in/built Sprint, he'd have my complete support and I'd be back to being a Sprint customer by now. So, there is that issue I've heard about regarding the banks not allowing him to invest further into Sprint. I'm really not sure how true that is or not, but in case it is true, I'll say one thing I'd be very supportive of as an indirect way he could possibly do to bypass that restriction. Build a fiber network. He could invest billions into Fiber to serve both businesses and homes, and also "sell" capacity to Sprint, without it being a direct investment. In the meantime, he'd be doing alot of good by providing people a true alternative to crappy Comcast I probably hate far more right now than the worst possible thing John Legere could do, and I'd even pay a few thousand dollars just to get that fiber over here from a build by the near main road where I live. There are many people wanting better internet besides me, and in all reality, AT&T and Google are just too damn slow at getting Fiber out to more areas. If Masa did this, he could have not only a great fiber network for customers and Sprint, but also have a great way to repair Sprint's reputation by tying Sprint with a very popular Fiber internet service Masa could build. All without it being a direct investment into Sprint itself.

With all the merger rumors going around, its easy to forget who posted what concerning which merger may happen. Personally, I think Altice, Charter, and Comcast will merge eventually. As I've written often here lately, cable company consolidation is likely to happen before they buyout wireless.

RedSpark, For a moment you had me thinking this was about Masa trying to sell Sprint to Altice.

Its still doing better than the LG V30 thread I created.

FYI, My mother called T-Mobile Executive Response to inquire about the new Unlimited 55+ plan, and was told that the T-Mobile Hookup discount cannot be applied to the plan. Otherwise it would have been an excellent deal with the two line 2x $10 monthly Plus add-on taking the rate from $60 monthly to $80 monthly, minus 20% down to $64 monthly. However again, the 20% Hookup discount isn't eligible for the plan, unfortunately.