Re: T-mobile prepaid no longer cost effective! What now?

On 12/04/10 4:09 PM, me@privacy.net wrote:
> When I was a single person paying by the minute with T
> Mobile prepaid was fine and cheap.
>
> Now I'm in relationship and burning up those min's and
> NOT so cheap!!
>
> Don't really want a contract....so thinking of a
> prepaid plan where you buy a "bucket" of minutes and
> text.
>
> Straight Talk has $30/month plan that allows 1000
> min's, 1000 texts, etc
>
> Any others I should look at in $30/month range?

The 1200 minute/1200 message/50MB plan from PagePlus. $30/month. Comes
down to around $27/month if you buy refills when they're on sale for 10%
off from CallingMart. The big advantage over StraightTalk (which is also
on the Verizon network) is that PagePlus allows extra-cost off-network
roaming, which is sometimes useful. StraightTalk allows no roaming at all.

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4bc3bda8$0$1586$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> On 12/04/10 4:09 PM, me@privacy.net wrote:
>> When I was a single person paying by the minute with T
>> Mobile prepaid was fine and cheap.
>>
>> Now I'm in relationship and burning up those min's and
>> NOT so cheap!!
>>
>> Don't really want a contract....so thinking of a
>> prepaid plan where you buy a "bucket" of minutes and
>> text.
>>
>> Straight Talk has $30/month plan that allows 1000
>> min's, 1000 texts, etc
>>
>> Any others I should look at in $30/month range?
>
> The 1200 minute/1200 message/50MB plan from PagePlus. $30/month. Comes
> down to around $27/month if you buy refills when they're on sale for 10%
> off from CallingMart. The big advantage over StraightTalk (which is also
> on the Verizon network) is that PagePlus allows extra-cost off-network
> roaming, which is sometimes useful. StraightTalk allows no roaming at all.

Seconded- that's the most cost effective strategy right now, and if it isn't
enough, unlimted voice/text is $10 more.

The ability to use any Verizon dumbphone on PP is another advantage over
ST's limited selection.

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:

>The ability to use any Verizon dumbphone on PP is another advantage over
>ST's limited selection.

Thanks guys.....sounds like PP is it for me this
"cheap" person then LOL!

I sure wish that all systems were GSM based tho.... so
I could use any phone I want to!

At 13 Apr 2010 15:31:50 -0500 me@privacy.net wrote:
> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> >The ability to use any Verizon dumbphone on PP is another advantage
over
> >ST's limited selection.
>
> Thanks guys.....sounds like PP is it for me this
> "cheap" person then LOL!
>
> I sure wish that all systems were GSM based tho.... so
> I could use any phone I want to!


Agreed. Finding a decent CDMA phone to put on PP was a bit of a chore
for me- I have a basket of old GSM phones!

Walmart has a 45 a month pre pay with unlimited everything net text pictures
mins you name it uses verizons trac phone network.



<me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:24l9s51rv7mbrf8dj8av3344u750e6si7s@4ax.com...
> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
>>The ability to use any Verizon dumbphone on PP is another advantage over
>>ST's limited selection.
>
> Thanks guys.....sounds like PP is it for me this
> "cheap" person then LOL!
>
> I sure wish that all systems were GSM based tho.... so
> I could use any phone I want to!

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:

>Agreed. Finding a decent CDMA phone to put on PP was a bit of a chore
>for me- I have a basket of old GSM phones!

Yeah I don't understand while ALL of the USA are NOT
GSM!!

***

<me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:tgpbs5tf1ghq73k3qpeg81tedui24tbtrr@4ax.com...
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
>>Agreed. Finding a decent CDMA phone to put on PP was a bit of a chore
>>for me- I have a basket of old GSM phones!
>
> Yeah I don't understand while ALL of the USA are NOT
> GSM!!
>
> ***

CDMA certainly has it's advantages. IMO, it's better that we have a market
that gives us the choice to choose the system right for our individual
needs, rather than a mandated system thrust upon us by bureaucrats. If the
government had made the call, there's a one-in-three chance we'd all be
using TDMA today!

....and it uses the limited selection of crummy phones specifically crippled
for that service!


"Andy" <N@n.com> wrote in message
news:4OCdneI7RISd7FjWnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@earthlink.co m...
> Walmart has a 45 a month pre pay with unlimited everything net text
> pictures mins you name it uses verizons trac phone network.
>
>
>
> <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:24l9s51rv7mbrf8dj8av3344u750e6si7s@4ax.com...
>> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The ability to use any Verizon dumbphone on PP is another advantage over
>>>ST's limited selection.
>>
>> Thanks guys.....sounds like PP is it for me this
>> "cheap" person then LOL!
>>
>> I sure wish that all systems were GSM based tho.... so
>> I could use any phone I want to!
>
>

On 15/04/10 11:48 AM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:tgpbs5tf1ghq73k3qpeg81tedui24tbtrr@4ax.com...
>> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Agreed. Finding a decent CDMA phone to put on PP was a bit of a chore
>>> for me- I have a basket of old GSM phones!
>>
>> Yeah I don't understand while ALL of the USA are NOT
>> GSM!!
>>
>> ***
>
> CDMA certainly has it's advantages. IMO, it's better that we have a
> market that gives us the choice to choose the system right for our
> individual needs, rather than a mandated system thrust upon us by
> bureaucrats. If the government had made the call, there's a one-in-three
> chance we'd all be using TDMA today!

One reason CDMA became so popular in the U.S. is that it's much better
suited for large, sparsely populated areas. You can cover a lot more
area with one CDMA tower than with one GSM tower. That's why so many
rural carriers moved from TDMA/AMPS to CDMA (though the AT&T affiliates
all moved to GSM of course).

Of course it's all moot with 3G where it's all CDMA of one sort, and
it'll be moot with 4G LTE which shares much of the underlying technology
of CDMA.

Speaking of governments defining the wireless technology, about eight
years ago many of the carriers in Europe wanted to move to all CDMA for
the next generation and their governments balked. That's why they ended
up with the kludge of GSM for voice and W-CDMA for data. There were some
good articles about this whole fiasco in The Economist back in 2002.

On 15/04/10 11:49 AM, Todd Allcock wrote:
> ...and it uses the limited selection of crummy phones specifically
> crippled for that service!

And no roaming.

On 15/04/10 12:43 PM, me@privacy.net wrote:
> SMS<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Speaking of governments defining the wireless technology, about eight
>> years ago many of the carriers in Europe wanted to move to all CDMA for
>> the next generation and their governments balked. That's why they ended
>> up with the kludge of GSM for voice and W-CDMA for data. There were some
>> good articles about this whole fiasco in The Economist back in 2002.
>
> Interesting thanks for that info!
>
> Ok.. but my main gripe with CDMA is that it does not
> have the little removable "chip" that GSM has that
> allows me to own several phones and move form on to
> another on will.
>
> IS it possible.... that CDMA phones COULD have such a
> removable "brain" ala GSM and manufacturers just do NOT
> make em that way? What gives?

I suppose, but on Verizon you just go online and change your phone. Not
so simple on PagePlus unfortunately. Also, on Verizon they can prevent
you from using certain phones on certain plans, i.e. they won't let you
activate a smart phone on a plan without data services.

GSM is indeed great when traveling to Europe and Asia since it's so easy
to buy a prepaid SIM card. While I can roam with my Verizon postpaid
phone in most of Asia, since most countries have both GSM and CDMA
networks, it's very expensive.

At 15 Apr 2010 12:05:03 -0700 SMS wrote:

> > CDMA certainly has it's advantages. IMO, it's better that we have a
> > market that gives us the choice to choose the system right for our
> > individual needs, rather than a mandated system thrust upon us by
> > bureaucrats. If the government had made the call, there's a one-in-
three
> > chance we'd all be using TDMA today!
>
> One reason CDMA became so popular in the U.S. is that it's much better
suited for large, sparsely populated areas. You can cover a lot more area
with one CDMA tower than with one GSM tower. That's why so many rural
carriers moved from TDMA/AMPS to CDMA (though the AT&T affiliates all
moved to GSM of course).


What about rural carriers like Viaero in Nebraska and Colorado, Plateau
in New Mexico, or iWireless in Iowa, and Missouri? Big flat expansesof
land theoretically ideal for CDMA, yet these carriers intentionally
inflicted GSM on themselves? In reality, GSM works fine over distances
modern handheld phones are able to transmit. I'd concede the CDMA longer
range argument to you if anyone actually used a handset that could
transmit farther than the GSM timing limit, but that just isn't the case
in the real world.

I think it was more of a matter of following the money- if you were a
rural carrier hoping to collect from Verizon/Sprint subscribers you used
CDMA, if your competitors were using CDMA you went GSM to sponge off of
AT&T and T-Mo instead.

I've had decent coverage from each of those rural GSM carriers above.

At 15 Apr 2010 14:43:03 -0500 me@privacy.net wrote:
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> >Speaking of governments defining the wireless technology, about eight
> >years ago many of the carriers in Europe wanted to move to all CDMA
for
> >the next generation and their governments balked. That's why they
ended
> >up with the kludge of GSM for voice and W-CDMA for data. There were
some
> >good articles about this whole fiasco in The Economist back in 2002.
>
> Interesting thanks for that info!
>
> Ok.. but my main gripe with CDMA is that it does not
> have the little removable "chip" that GSM has that
> allows me to own several phones and move form on to
> another on will.
>
> IS it possible.... that CDMA phones COULD have such a
> removable "brain" ala GSM and manufacturers just do NOT
> make em that way? What gives?


Control. The US CDMA carriers were loathe to concede any level of
equipment control to end-users- heck, Sprint won't even let you activate
a non-Sprint-branded handset on their service- even one sold by a Sprint
affiliate or partner like Virgin Mobile.

This prevents any "funny business" GSM carriers put up with, like trying
to sneak smartphones or data cards on cheaper dumbphone plans, or using
phones with features carriers suppress to encourage the purchase of
services. Verizon, for example, used to castrate phones to preventing
you from copying photos from the phone to a PC or copy ringtones from PCs
to phones. Sprint removes the native tethering software on many
smartphones and replaces it with software that won't connect unless
you've subscribed to the appropriate plan first. Crap like that would be
far easier to circumvent if you could just pop your SIM into an
uncrippled phone a la GSM.

On Apr 15, 3:06*pm, Todd Allcock <eleccon...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> At 15 Apr 2010 14:43:03 -0500 m...@privacy.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > >Speaking of governments defining the wireless technology, about eight
> > >years ago many of the carriers in Europe wanted to move to all CDMA
> for
> > >the next generation and their governments balked. That's why they
> ended
> > >up with the kludge of GSM for voice and W-CDMA for data. There were
> some
> > >good articles about this whole fiasco in The Economist back in 2002.
>
> > Interesting thanks for that info!
>
> > Ok.. but my main gripe with CDMA is that it does not
> > have the little removable "chip" that *GSM has that
> > allows me to own several phones and move form on to
> > another on will.
>
> > IS it possible.... that CDMA phones COULD have such a
> > removable "brain" ala GSM and manufacturers just do NOT
> > make em that way? *What gives?
>
> Control. *The US CDMA carriers were loathe to concede any level of
> equipment control to end-users- heck, Sprint won't even let you activate
> a non-Sprint-branded handset on their service- even one sold by a Sprint
> affiliate or partner like Virgin Mobile.
>
> This prevents any "funny business" GSM carriers put up with, like trying
> to sneak smartphones or data cards on cheaper dumbphone plans, or using
> phones with features carriers suppress to encourage the purchase of
> services. *Verizon, for example, used to castrate phones to preventing
> you from copying photos from the phone to a PC or copy ringtones from PCs
> to phones. *Sprint removes the native tethering software on many
> smartphones and replaces it with software that won't connect unless
> you've subscribed to the appropriate plan first. *Crap like that would be
> far easier to circumvent if you could just pop your SIM into an
> uncrippled phone a la GSM.

Actually, you can't be so sneaky with GSM. Any time you use your
phone the IMEI is broadcast. Your operator whether it's AT&T, T-
Mobile or Vodafone can do a look up of your IMEI and they'll know
exactly which phone you're using and insist that you take a data plan
if you have a smartphone.

At 25 Apr 2010 15:44:14 -0700 Joe Seattle wrote:
> On Apr 15, 3:06*pm, Todd Allcock <eleccon...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> > At 15 Apr 2010 14:43:03 -0500 m...@privacy.net wrote:

> > > Ok.. but my main gripe with CDMA is that it does not
> > > have the little removable "chip" that *GSM has that
> > > allows me to own several phones and move form on to
> > > another on will.
> >
> > > IS it possible.... that CDMA phones COULD have such a
> > > removable "brain" ala GSM and manufacturers just do NOT
> > > make em that way? *What gives?
> >
> > Control. *The US CDMA carriers were loathe to concede any level of
> > equipment control to end-users- heck, Sprint won't even let you
> > activate a non-Sprint-branded handset on their service- even one sold
> > by a Sprint affiliate or partner like Virgin Mobile.
> >
> > This prevents any "funny business" GSM carriers put up with, like
> > trying to sneak smartphones or data cards on cheaper dumbphone plans,
> > or using phones with features carriers suppress to encourage the
> > purchase of services. *Verizon, for example, used to castrate phones
> > to preventing you from copying photos from the phone to a PC or copy
> > ringtones from PCs to phones. *Sprint removes the native tethering
> > software on many smartphones and replaces it with software that won't
> > connect unless you've subscribed to the appropriate plan first. *Crap
> > like that would be far easier to circumvent if you could just pop
> > your SIM into an uncrippled phone a la GSM.
>
> Actually, you can't be so sneaky with GSM. Any time you use your
> phone the IMEI is broadcast. Your operator whether it's AT&T, T-
> Mobile or Vodafone can do a look up of your IMEI and they'll know
> exactly which phone you're using and insist that you take a data plan
> if you have a smartphone.

True, but I'd suggest we split the difference- it's much easier to be
"sneaky" with American GSM carriers than CDMA carriers.

Besides- it not just about data plan prices.
Plenty of unlocked GSM "dumbphones" support tethering laptops- something
no Sprint dumbphone can do without an extra-cost "phone as modem" plan..
Unlimited tethering on an AT&T MediaNet plan for $15, or a T-Mo Web $10
plan, with an unbranded handset might look pretty attractive to some,
particularly if the carrier-branded phones have that feature removed.


As to plan prices, sure, carriers can do IMEI lookups, but that requires
getting complete databases from the manufacturers- Nokia, for example,
makes an awful lot of phones. AT&T might have to dig pretty deep to
figure out that non-AT&T-branded Nokia I just slipped my SIM into wasn't
a dumb candy bar, but rather some Symbian uber-phone sold exclusively by
a Polish operator. Obviously it's easier with some manufacturers- at
this point, any phone with an Apple manufacturer ID is obviously an iPhone,

and any HTC-built device is some sort of smartphone, because that's all
they build.

Regardless of the theoretical ID possibilities, at this point neither
AT&T nor T-Mobile USA dig that deep. In determining data plan costs,
AT&T typically presumes all non-AT&T phones are "dumb," while T-Mo
recently started charging all non-T-Mo phones, even dumb ones, the higher
smartphone rate. (Ironic, really, since many 3G European smartphones
work on AT&T's 3G frequencies while very few work on T-Mo's. I could
easily be gobbling GBs of data on AT&T at dumbphone rates with my
Vodaphone-branded WinMo device, but with my T-Mo account it's stuck on
EDGE! I'm grandfathered on an old data plan that apparently supports any
phone, though, so at least I'm not paying smartphone rates for slow
speeds.)

On Apr 25, 9:21*pm, Todd Allcock <eleccon...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> > Actually, you can't be so sneaky with GSM. *Any time you use your
> > phone the IMEI is broadcast. *Your operator whether it's AT&T, T-
> > Mobile or Vodafone can do a look up of your IMEI and they'll know
> > exactly which phone you're using and insist that you take a data plan
> > if you have a smartphone.
>
> True, but I'd suggest we split the difference- it's much easier to be
> "sneaky" with American GSM carriers than CDMA carriers.
>
> Besides- it not just about data plan prices. *
> Plenty of unlocked GSM "dumbphones" support tethering laptops- something
> no Sprint dumbphone can do without an extra-cost "phone as modem" plan.
> Unlimited tethering on an AT&T MediaNet plan for $15, or a T-Mo Web $10
> plan, with an unbranded handset might look pretty attractive to some,
> particularly if the carrier-branded phones have that feature removed.
>
> As to plan prices, sure, carriers can do IMEI lookups, but that requires
> getting complete databases from the manufacturers- Nokia, for example,
> makes an awful lot of phones. *AT&T might have to dig pretty deep to
> figure out that non-AT&T-branded Nokia I just slipped my SIM into wasn't
> a dumb candy bar, but rather some Symbian uber-phone sold exclusively by
> a Polish operator. *Obviously it's easier with some manufacturers- at
> this point, any phone with an Apple manufacturer ID is obviously an iPhone,
>
> and any HTC-built device is some sort of smartphone, because that's all
> they build.
>
> Regardless of the theoretical ID possibilities, at this point neither
> AT&T nor T-Mobile USA dig that deep. *In determining data plan costs,
> AT&T typically presumes all non-AT&T phones are "dumb," while T-Mo
> recently started charging all non-T-Mo phones, even dumb ones, the higher
> smartphone rate. *(Ironic, really, since many 3G European smartphones
> work on AT&T's 3G frequencies while very few work on T-Mo's. *I could
> easily be gobbling GBs of data on AT&T at dumbphone rates with my
> Vodaphone-branded WinMo device, but with my T-Mo account it's stuck on
> EDGE! *I'm grandfathered on an old data plan that apparently supports any
> phone, though, so at least I'm not paying smartphone rates for slow
> speeds.)

This software can do it easily:

http://www.bestfreewaredownload.com/...-arhymgcm.html

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:44:14 -0700 (PDT), Joe Seattle
<joeofseattle@yahoo.com> wrote in
<b796ae43-e4df-4e75-940f-7274c018f49c@o15g2000pra.googlegroups.com>:

>On Apr 15, 3:06*pm, Todd Allcock <eleccon...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>> At 15 Apr 2010 14:43:03 -0500 m...@privacy.net wrote:
>> > SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >Speaking of governments defining the wireless technology, about eight
>> > >years ago many of the carriers in Europe wanted to move to all CDMA for
>> > >the next generation and their governments balked. That's why they ended
>> > >up with the kludge of GSM for voice and W-CDMA for data. There were some
>> > >good articles about this whole fiasco in The Economist back in 2002.

Only in your dreams. Or did you intend that as humor?

>> > Interesting thanks for that info!

Just as interesting as "Intelligent Design".
--
Best regards,
John

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?