PING! anyone here using the "t-mobile at home" pseudo landline?

If you're using it, could you drop me a direct e-mail? I've
noticed a peculiarity I'd like to double check with
someone else.

Thanks

--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

At 14 Sep 2009 01:06:52 +0000 danny burstein wrote:

> If you're using it, could you drop me a direct e-mail? I've
> noticed a peculiarity I'd like to double check with
> someone else.
>
> Thanks


I think there are only a half dozen of us reading this group! Sadly, I
don't use @Home, so I can't help you, but you might try HowardForums.com-
they have thousands of registered users, and few dozen might even be over
18 years old!

Kidding aside, they have a dedicated T-Mo sub-forum for @Home, and it gets
a respectable amount of traffic. Their T-Mo forums get more traffic in a
day than this newgroup gets in a month, sadly.

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:06:52 -0400, danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:

> If you're using it, could you drop me a direct e-mail? I've
> noticed a peculiarity I'd like to double check with
> someone else.
>
> Thanks

I don't, but I'd be curious what the "peculiarity" you've found is.

And, on another note, it would appear that T-Mobile has rescinded
its decision to start imposing monthly $1.50 surcharges for paper
bills getting mailed out :-) . I can probably dig up the relevant
URL, should you want it. Something about negative customer response.

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 23:53:15 -0400, tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:06:52 -0400, danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> If you're using it, could you drop me a direct e-mail? I've
>> noticed a peculiarity I'd like to double check with
>> someone else.
>>
>> Thanks
>
>I don't, but I'd be curious what the "peculiarity" you've found is.
>
>And, on another note, it would appear that T-Mobile has rescinded
>its decision to start imposing monthly $1.50 surcharges for paper
>bills getting mailed out :-) . I can probably dig up the relevant
>URL, should you want it. Something about negative customer response.
>
>Cheers, -- tlvp

T-Mobile dropped the $1.50 surcharge!!!!!! Great! Negative consumer
response??? I wonder why. :-)

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:35:25 -0400, « Jeem » <not@thebeach.now> wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 23:53:15 -0400, tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:06:52 -0400, danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you're using it, could you drop me a direct e-mail? I've
>>> noticed a peculiarity I'd like to double check with
>>> someone else.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>
>> I don't, but I'd be curious what the "peculiarity" you've found is.
>>
>> And, on another note, it would appear that T-Mobile has rescinded
>> its decision to start imposing monthly $1.50 surcharges for paper
>> bills getting mailed out :-) . I can probably dig up the relevant
>> URL, should you want it. Something about negative customer response.
>>
>> Cheers, -- tlvp
>
> T-Mobile dropped the $1.50 surcharge!!!!!! Great! Negative consumer
> response??? I wonder why. :-)

One URL that reporting that decision should be:

http://tmotoday.com/blogs/william/09...billing-charge

(hope that line doesn't break for you, but remains intact).

Cheers, -- tlvp


--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

On Sep 13, 6:06 pm, danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
> If you're using it, could you drop me a direct e-mail? I've
> noticed a peculiarity I'd like to double check with
> someone else.

I may be the only person who this bugs, but I'm really over people who
post to groups which are public forums and ask a specific question and
that someone email them directly. Do they not think the question that
they think is important might be something that someone else might
also benefit from a discussion? Granted groups such as this one are
90% content that doesn't have anything to do with T-Mobile it still
would be nice for someone to share if they have good information.

In <4a831708-b93c-4429-851e-1f335638aaad@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com> Joe Seattle <joeofseattle@yahoo.com> writes:

>On Sep 13, 6:06 pm, danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> If you're using it, could you drop me a direct e-mail? I've
>> noticed a peculiarity I'd like to double check with
>> someone else.

>I may be the only person who this bugs, but I'm really over people who
>post to groups which are public forums and ask a specific question and
>that someone email them directly. Do they not think the question that
>they think is important might be something that someone else might
>also benefit from a discussion? Granted groups such as this one are
>90% content that doesn't have anything to do with T-Mobile it still
>would be nice for someone to share if they have good information.

Arguable, but defensible on both sides. The issue I'd like to
double check is a bit esoteric and would involve some backs-and-forths
to verify.

Once done so, I'd have reported my findings...


--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

I have it, and would be glad to correspond, but only on this forum. I have
no desire to give you my email address.



"danny burstein" <dannyb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:h8uav3$ole$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In <4a831708-b93c-4429-851e-1f335638aaad@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com> Joe
> Seattle <joeofseattle@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>On Sep 13, 6:06 pm, danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> If you're using it, could you drop me a direct e-mail? I've
>>> noticed a peculiarity I'd like to double check with
>>> someone else.
>
>>I may be the only person who this bugs, but I'm really over people who
>>post to groups which are public forums and ask a specific question and
>>that someone email them directly. Do they not think the question that
>>they think is important might be something that someone else might
>>also benefit from a discussion? Granted groups such as this one are
>>90% content that doesn't have anything to do with T-Mobile it still
>>would be nice for someone to share if they have good information.
>
> Arguable, but defensible on both sides. The issue I'd like to
> double check is a bit esoteric and would involve some backs-and-forths
> to verify.
>
> Once done so, I'd have reported my findings...
>
>
> --
> __________________________________________________ ___
> Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
> dannyb@panix.com
> [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

In <IXMsm.11140$944.5788@newsfe09.iad> "Petro Gibraltar" <Petro.Gibraltar@a0l.com> writes:

>I have it, and would be glad to correspond, but only on this forum. I have
>no desire to give you my email address.

Could you take the SIM card out of the router, place
it into a cell phone, and see if it works for
incoming and outgoing calls?

Thanks

--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

"danny burstein" <dannyb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:h906e2$ear$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In <IXMsm.11140$944.5788@newsfe09.iad> "Petro Gibraltar"
> <Petro.Gibraltar@a0l.com> writes:
>
>>I have it, and would be glad to correspond, but only on this forum. I have
>>no desire to give you my email address.
>
> Could you take the SIM card out of the router, place
> it into a cell phone, and see if it works for
> incoming and outgoing calls?
>
> Thanks


Whoa, before he does that, doesn't T-Mobile charge $0.40/minute for any
cellular calls placed with the @Home router SIM? AFAIK, since T-Mo includes
"0" GSM minutes on the @Home router's line, all cellular calls on that line
are charged at the usual T-Mo plan overage rate, which I believe is
currently $0.40, and going up to $0.45 soon.

In <IqNsm.12808$6f4.2108@newsfe08.iad> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> writes:

>Whoa, before he does that, doesn't T-Mobile charge $0.40/minute for any
>cellular calls placed with the @Home router SIM?

"blink". I sure hope not.... umm..

Where did you see that?

> AFAIK, since T-Mo includes
>"0" GSM minutes on the @Home router's line, all cellular calls on that line
>are charged at the usual T-Mo plan overage rate, which I believe is
>currently $0.40, and going up to $0.45 soon.

Ah, I see your point. Hmm... well, I'll find out one way or
another next week when I see this month's bill.

My statements and on line bills suggest that my "bucket"
of gsm minutes applies to the entire account, not to
the SIM. Let's see what the bill shows next week.

Thanks for the heads up. I guess I'll refrain from
using my "@home" SIM in my phone until then.

--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

At 18 Sep 2009 15:24:06 +0000 danny burstein wrote:

> >Whoa, before he does that, doesn't T-Mobile charge $0.40/minute for any
> >cellular calls placed with the @Home router SIM?
>
> "blink". I sure hope not.... umm..
>
> Where did you see that?

<http://forums.t-mobile.com/tmbl/board/message?board.id=100&thread.id=1707>
was the first applicable result of my Google search, but it's been
discussed thoroughly on Howard Forums and T-Mo's customer forums.

Apparently the restriction is designed to prevent someone from getting an
unlimited line of cell service for $10/month by activating an @Home router
account then moving the SIM card to a spare phone.

In <Kh_sm.435321$Ta5.246764@newsfe15.iad> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> writes:

>> Where did you see that?

><http://forums.t-mobile.com/tmbl/board/message?board.id=100&thread.id=1707>
>was the first applicable result of my Google search, but it's been
>discussed thoroughly on Howard Forums and T-Mo's customer forums.

>Apparently the restriction is designed to prevent someone from getting an
>unlimited line of cell service for $10/month by activating an @Home router
>account then moving the SIM card to a spare phone.

Seems to me the best answer would be for the customer's "bucket"
of, let's say 1,000 minutes, to simply apply across the board
and get called on by whichever SIM happens to make a GSM call.

(Which I figured was probabl happening when I took that SIM from
the router and placed it in the cell phone.)



--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

"danny burstein" <dannyb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:h926h0$75s$1@reader1.panix.com...

>>Apparently the restriction is designed to prevent someone from getting an
>>unlimited line of cell service for $10/month by activating an @Home router
>>account then moving the SIM card to a spare phone.
>
> Seems to me the best answer would be for the customer's "bucket"
> of, let's say 1,000 minutes, to simply apply across the board
> and get called on by whichever SIM happens to make a GSM call.

But then you'd be "double dipping" - a regular extra line on a family plan
is $10/month, so in your scheme, you'd get both a family plan line and
unlimited @Home calling for the same $10 (only one feature could be used at
a time, of course, depending on whether the SIM was in a phone or the
router.) Heck, I'd take an @Home router/plan under your idea, use it in my
phone 95% of the time, and just stick my SIM in the router when I needed to
make a long call or traveled overseas.

I think T-Mo is confusing customers with these similar @Home products. They
should've gone with either the router or the UMA Hotspot@Home WiFi phones.
The phones make more sense to me, particularly for a cellular company, since
they're mobile phones. T-Mo could've then marketed an adapter to plug
existing UMA phones (e.g. a BT cradle like the Dock-n-Talk) into a home
phone line rather than promote the @Home router as a separate service. This
would be more portable, and allow regular cellular calling as an automatic
backup when your broadband internet goes down.

In <eA7tm.11326$944.3369@newsfe09.iad> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> writes:
>> Seems to me the best answer would be for the customer's "bucket"
>> of, let's say 1,000 minutes, to simply apply across the board
>> and get called on by whichever SIM happens to make a GSM call.

>But then you'd be "double dipping" - a regular extra line on a family plan
>is $10/month, so in your scheme, you'd get both a family plan line and
>unlimited @Home calling for the same $10 (only one feature could be used at
>a time, of course, depending on whether the SIM was in a phone or the
>router.) Heck, I'd take an @Home router/plan under your idea, use it in my
>phone 95% of the time, and just stick my SIM in the router when I needed to
>make a long call or traveled overseas.

It's in t-Mobile's self interest to encourage people
to use the "router" as much as possible, since it
reduces load and congestion on the cellular network,
thus saving them oodles of money.

(And maybe, just maybe, changes the "termination fees"
the companies pay to each other. My head hurts on that one.)

Kind of like bank ATMs....


--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

"danny burstein" <dannyb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:h9341e$1q$2@reader1.panix.com...
> In <eA7tm.11326$944.3369@newsfe09.iad> "Todd Allcock"
> <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> writes:
>>> Seems to me the best answer would be for the customer's "bucket"
>>> of, let's say 1,000 minutes, to simply apply across the board
>>> and get called on by whichever SIM happens to make a GSM call.
>
>>But then you'd be "double dipping" - a regular extra line on a family plan
>>is $10/month, so in your scheme, you'd get both a family plan line and
>>unlimited @Home calling for the same $10 (only one feature could be used
>>at
>>a time, of course, depending on whether the SIM was in a phone or the
>>router.) Heck, I'd take an @Home router/plan under your idea, use it in
>>my
>>phone 95% of the time, and just stick my SIM in the router when I needed
>>to
>>make a long call or traveled overseas.
>
> It's in t-Mobile's self interest to encourage people
> to use the "router" as much as possible, since it
> reduces load and congestion on the cellular network,
> thus saving them oodles of money.

T-Mobile has to operate a cellular network for mobile use anyway, and AFAIK,
congestion has yet to be much of an issue for them so far.

The biggest expense in providing heavy usage/unlimited service (like the
@Home service encourages) is the termination fees paid to landline carriers.
I suspect the offering of unlimited @Home service for $10 is actually a loss
leader designed to encourage customers to come to T-Mobile to get it, since
only T-Mo wireless subscribers are elligible to buy it. Vonage is having
trouble making money selling unlimited VoIP service for $25, so I doubt T-Mo
can profitably sell it for 40% of that number. It's a marketing gimmick.


> (And maybe, just maybe, changes the "termination fees"
> the companies pay to each other. My head hurts on that one.)
>
> Kind of like bank ATMs....

AFAIK, American mobile operators charge little to nothing for term fees
(which is why Sprint can offer that new "free to any mobile regardless of
carrier" plan)- it's the rural wireline carriers who charge the high fees.

Todd Allcock wrote:

> The biggest expense in providing heavy usage/unlimited service (like the
> @Home service encourages) is the termination fees paid to landline carriers.
> I suspect the offering of unlimited @Home service for $10 is actually a loss
> leader designed to encourage customers to come to T-Mobile to get it, since
> only T-Mo wireless subscribers are elligible to buy it. Vonage is having
> trouble making money selling unlimited VoIP service for $25, so I doubt T-Mo
> can profitably sell it for 40% of that number. It's a marketing gimmick.

I don't think so. You can call US from Germany for 0.006 EUR/min, that's
less than 0.01 USD/min. With <http://www.peterzahlt.de/> you can do that
for free (without any payments, but restricted).

A regular flatrate is available for 10-12 USD with VoIP. With
<http://www.voipbuster.com/en/index.html> you get 300 minutes per week
for an one-time payment.

Deutsche Telekom charges 3.95 EUR/month flat (and that includes 24
further countries), but that's only an add-on to a regular tariff with
a fixed line.

Vonage may have other problems, but not the interconnection fees. ;-)

Cheers Dirk

At 20 Sep 2009 06:51:01 +0200 Dirk Bieber wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> > The biggest expense in providing heavy usage/unlimited service (like the
> > @Home service encourages) is the termination fees paid to landline
carriers.
> > I suspect the offering of unlimited @Home service for $10 is actually a
loss
> > leader designed to encourage customers to come to T-Mobile to get it,
since
> > only T-Mo wireless subscribers are elligible to buy it. Vonage is
having
> > trouble making money selling unlimited VoIP service for $25, so I doubt
T-Mo
> > can profitably sell it for 40% of that number. It's a marketing gimmick.

>
> I don't think so. You can call US from Germany for 0.006 EUR/min, that's
> less than 0.01 USD/min. With <http://www.peterzahlt.de/> you can do that
> for free (without any payments, but restricted).
>
> A regular flatrate is available for 10-12 USD with VoIP. With
> <http://www.voipbuster.com/en/index.html> you get 300 minutes per week
> for an one-time payment.
>
> Deutsche Telekom charges 3.95 EUR/month flat (and that includes 24
> further countries), but that's only an add-on to a regular tariff with
> a fixed line.
>
> Vonage may have other problems, but not the interconnection fees. ;-)
>
> Cheers Dirk

Those companies, among others, are playing the averages.

A problem with providing flat rate service in the US is that the
interconnect differs based on the area you call. In metropolitan areas
it's under $0.01/mn, but in a few remote areas it's a high as $0.07.
Businesses have actually sprung up offering free international calling,
free incoming VoIP, conference and/or fax calls, by using rural Iowa or
Washington telephone numbers, and collecting the interconnect fees as their
sole revenue. Several of our phone companies actually stopped connecting
calls to one such "free international calling" company, Futurephone, after
they gained some notoriety, running them out of business.

So, as long as customers are calling New York, L.A., Chicago, etc., a
fraction of a Eurocent will be a fair amount to charge, but it could get
ugly if their clients primarily call relatives in rural Iowa!

Yes, you can. It works fine. In fact, my SIM hasn't been in the router for
about 10 months.
Also, something they won't tell you: If you live in your own house, you can
disconnect your incoming landline at the network interface box, plug the
router into a phone jack instead of plugging a phone into the router, and
have dial tone on ALL your existing inside jacks.


"danny burstein" <dannyb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:h906e2$ear$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In <IXMsm.11140$944.5788@newsfe09.iad> "Petro Gibraltar"
> <Petro.Gibraltar@a0l.com> writes:
>
>>I have it, and would be glad to correspond, but only on this forum. I have
>>no desire to give you my email address.
>
> Could you take the SIM card out of the router, place
> it into a cell phone, and see if it works for
> incoming and outgoing calls?
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> __________________________________________________ ___
> Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
> dannyb@panix.com
> [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
>

JohnQuincyAdams (JQA) wrote:
> Yes, you can. It works fine. In fact, my SIM hasn't been in the router
> for about 10 months.
> Also, something they won't tell you: If you live in your own house, you
> can disconnect your incoming landline at the network interface box, plug
> the router into a phone jack instead of plugging a phone into the
> router, and have dial tone on ALL your existing inside jacks.
>
If you do this you need to be careful of polarity. I know that the old
Western Electric touch tone pads don't work if the polarity is reversed.
j

"Jim" <Jim@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:h95a8e$795$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> JohnQuincyAdams (JQA) wrote:
>> Yes, you can. It works fine. In fact, my SIM hasn't been in the router
>> for about 10 months.
>> Also, something they won't tell you: If you live in your own house, you
>> can disconnect your incoming landline at the network interface box, plug
>> the router into a phone jack instead of plugging a phone into the router,
>> and have dial tone on ALL your existing inside jacks.
>>
> If you do this you need to be careful of polarity. I know that the old
> Western Electric touch tone pads don't work if the polarity is reversed.
> j
>

You can buy a polarity checker at Radio Shack for $2 USD . If you have the
NID from Bell, everything should be fine.

JohnQuincyAdams (JQA) wrote:

> Yes, you can. It works fine. In fact, my SIM hasn't been in the router
> for about 10 months.
> Also, something they won't tell you: If you live in your own house, you
> can disconnect your incoming landline at the network interface box, plug
> the router into a phone jack instead of plugging a phone into the
> router, and have dial tone on ALL your existing inside jacks.

Be careful of the load (i.e., the number of phones you have connected)
so you don't fry the router.

Perce

"Percival P. Cassidy" <Nobody@NotMyISP.net> wrote in message
news:h95rh7$dq8$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> JohnQuincyAdams (JQA) wrote:
>
>> Yes, you can. It works fine. In fact, my SIM hasn't been in the router
>> for about 10 months.
>> Also, something they won't tell you: If you live in your own house, you
>> can disconnect your incoming landline at the network interface box, plug
>> the router into a phone jack instead of plugging a phone into the router,
>> and have dial tone on ALL your existing inside jacks.
>
> Be careful of the load (i.e., the number of phones you have connected) so
> you don't fry the router.
>
> Perce
>

I had as many as six at one time. This message is coming to you through
that router.

In <h908mm$j7r$1@reader1.panix.com> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> writes:

>In <IqNsm.12808$6f4.2108@newsfe08.iad> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> writes:

>>Whoa, before he does that, doesn't T-Mobile charge $0.40/minute for any
>>cellular calls placed with the @Home router SIM?

>"blink". I sure hope not.... umm..

>Where did you see that?

>> AFAIK, since T-Mo includes
>>"0" GSM minutes on the @Home router's line, all cellular calls on that line
>>are charged at the usual T-Mo plan overage rate, which I believe is
>>currently $0.40, and going up to $0.45 soon.

>Ah, I see your point. Hmm... well, I'll find out one way or
>another next week when I see this month's bill.

A BIG thanks to the poster who clued me into the possible charge.

Eyup, my bill for the month included (approx, from memory)
an additional charge of about $150 for 300 something minutes
at $0.45 per...

Fortunately, thanks to the heads up here, I stopped using
that "router SIM" in the cell phone before the end of the
billing period...

I wrote customer service a polite note explaining what had
happened, and how I had believed that the "bucket" applied
to my account, not to the SIM.

They were kind enough to credit back the whole excess hit,
bringing the bill almost back to normal.

(They credited the raw amount, and didn't adjust the taxes...
So the actual bill wound up being about $15 more than
normal. I'll live).

In the long run I'm a'hoping they'll modify their plans
so as to mix and match all the SIMs into one bucket.

Thanks again for the heads up here.

--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

At 13 Oct 2009 20:28:49 +0000 danny burstein wrote:
> In <h908mm$j7r$1@reader1.panix.com> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
writes:
>
> >In <IqNsm.12808$6f4.2108@newsfe08.iad> "Todd Allcock"
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> writes:
>
> >>Whoa, before he does that, doesn't T-Mobile charge $0.40/minute for any
> >>cellular calls placed with the @Home router SIM?
>
> >"blink". I sure hope not.... umm..
>
> >Where did you see that?
>
> >> AFAIK, since T-Mo includes
> >>"0" GSM minutes on the @Home router's line, all cellular calls on that
line
> >>are charged at the usual T-Mo plan overage rate, which I believe is
> >>currently $0.40, and going up to $0.45 soon.
>
> >Ah, I see your point. Hmm... well, I'll find out one way or
> >another next week when I see this month's bill.
>
> A BIG thanks to the poster who clued me into the possible charge.
>
> Eyup, my bill for the month included (approx, from memory)
> an additional charge of about $150 for 300 something minutes
> at $0.45 per...
>
> Fortunately, thanks to the heads up here, I stopped using
> that "router SIM" in the cell phone before the end of the
> billing period...
>
> I wrote customer service a polite note explaining what had
> happened, and how I had believed that the "bucket" applied
> to my account, not to the SIM.
>
> They were kind enough to credit back the whole excess hit,
> bringing the bill almost back to normal.
>
> (They credited the raw amount, and didn't adjust the taxes...
> So the actual bill wound up being about $15 more than
> normal. I'll live).
>
> In the long run I'm a'hoping they'll modify their plans
> so as to mix and match all the SIMs into one bucket.
>
> Thanks again for the heads up here.


My pleasure! Nice to know T-Mo adjusted the bill for you, and proved again
why their customer service dept. keeps winning those J.D. Powers awards!