> I presume I'm not the only one (am I?) to get this SMS from T-Mo:
>
> Date: Jan 03, 10:51
> From: 456
> Subject: Free T-Mobile Meg:
>
> You may have heard the AT&T merger won't occur; we remain
> committed to a great future w/ you, thanks for your loyalty!
> http://bit.ly/TMOnews
>
> (Meaning just what?) Cheers, -- tlvp
Meaning I'd probably have been OK to have stayed with T-Mobile but I
really don't regret spending the extra $5.00/month to move back to
Verizon since my house is in a T-Mo dead spot and I must use WiFi to
connect and one place that I visit often has no WiFi, erratic 3G from
T-Mo. Both places are solid 4G from VZW.
So is it worth $5/mo or $60/year? I really don't know but I'm not
sorry I made the switch.
On 1/4/2012 9:53 AM, Steve Sobol wrote:
> In article<Xns9FD06B3AC87Bxs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1>, XS11E says...
>
>
>> So is it worth $5/mo or $60/year? I really don't know but I'm not
>> sorry I made the switch.
>
> I wouldn't be, either. Coverage should be the #1 reason you choose a
> carrier.
Obviously hundreds of millions of wireless users feel differently and
willingly compromise on coverage. Especially T-Mobile users.
Some choose based on price. Some choose based on handset. Some choose
based on international access. Some choose on data speed.
Look at all the people that moved to AT&T, giving up coverage (though
not realizing it at the time of purchase) in order to get the iPhone. I
recall being at city council meetings in my city where residents were
complaining about AT&T coverage because they switched to AT&T to get an
iPhone and found out too late that it would not work in many parts of
town (especially embarrassing to AT&T since Apple has its headquarters
here). Of course there are also residents opposed to new cell towers
that are the cause of the woes of AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile.
<http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/articles/t-mobile-focus-remains-unchanged>
is a very strange press release considering that T-Mobile does not offer
any 4G devices or service.
At 04 Jan 2012 09:53:32 -0800 Steve Sobol wrote:
> In article <Xns9FD06B3AC87Bxs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1>, XS11E says...
>
>
> > So is it worth $5/mo or $60/year? I really don't know but I'm not
> > sorry I made the switch.
>
> I wouldn't be, either. Coverage should be the #1 reason you choose a
> carrier.
I don't think it's that easy. I'd say the #1 reason is "value". Coverage
is a factor, but has to balanced with price, else we'd all be carrying
satellite phones. For me, T-Mo hits that sweet spot. It works almost
everywhere I go, and at about 60% of what I'd pay Verizon for a
comparable level of service (minutes, data allowance, etc.)
> Look at all the people that moved to AT&T, giving up coverage (though
> not realizing it at the time of purchase) in order to get the iPhone. I
> recall being at city council meetings in my city where residents were
> complaining about AT&T coverage because they switched to AT&T to get an
> iPhone and found out too late that it would not work in many parts of
> town (especially embarrassing to AT&T since Apple has its headquarters
> here). Of course there are also residents opposed to new cell towers
> that are the cause of the woes of AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile.
I'm somewhat in a similar situation with T-Mo as I also live in a
city where its HQ is, yet I find quite a few places with useless signal
strength. Yet I am staying with them for all those other reasons,
especially the WiFi calling. In residential areas I can usually find
free WiFi where there is weak T-Mo signal.
When I first became a T-Mo customer I also had no signal at home,
just about 2 miles direct line from their HQ because of a hill in
between. However, soon I found out that the lack of signal was not the
fault of T-Mobile but due to difficulties of getting permit for new
towers. Everybody wants good coverage but no towers in their backyard.
In message <MPG.296e31f079f830649898c1@news.justthe.net> someone
claiming to be Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> typed:
>In article <Xns9FD06B3AC87Bxs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1>, XS11E says...
>
>
>> So is it worth $5/mo or $60/year? I really don't know but I'm not
>> sorry I made the switch.
>
>I wouldn't be, either. Coverage should be the #1 reason you choose a
>carrier.
Yup. Ignore whether they provide the features or functionally you want,
or whether they cost 2x-50x more, or even carry the phone you want,
coverage coverage coverage!
--
It's always darkest before dawn. So if you're going to
steal your neighbor's newspaper, that's the time to do it.
> In message <MPG.296e31f079f830649898c1@news.justthe.net> someone
> claiming to be Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> typed:
>
>>In article <Xns9FD06B3AC87Bxs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1>, XS11E says...
>>> So is it worth $5/mo or $60/year? I really don't know but I'm
>>> not sorry I made the switch.
>>
>>I wouldn't be, either. Coverage should be the #1 reason you choose
>>a carrier.
>
> Yup. Ignore whether they provide the features or functionally you
> want, or whether they cost 2x-50x more, or even carry the phone
> you want, coverage coverage coverage!
Yup, yourself. There's no reason to have a cell phone if it doesn't
work where you need it to work, is there?
Tell me what use are features or functionality if you can't connect?
How does a 'better' phone help if it is useful only as a paperweight?
What does a lower price matter if you can't make a call with a cheaper
service?
On 1/4/2012 11:24 AM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>> I wouldn't be, either. Coverage should be the #1 reason you choose a
>> carrier.
>
> I don't think it's that easy. I'd say the #1 reason is "value". Coverage
> is a factor, but has to balanced with price, else we'd all be carrying
> satellite phones. For me, T-Mo hits that sweet spot. It works almost
> everywhere I go, and at about 60% of what I'd pay Verizon for a
> comparable level of service (minutes, data allowance, etc.)
> At 04 Jan 2012 09:53:32 -0800 Steve Sobol wrote:
>> In article <Xns9FD06B3AC87Bxs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1>, XS11E
>> says...
>>
>>
>> > So is it worth $5/mo or $60/year? I really don't know but I'm
>> > not sorry I made the switch.
>>
>> I wouldn't be, either. Coverage should be the #1 reason you
>> choose a carrier.
>
> I don't think it's that easy. I'd say the #1 reason is "value".
> Coverage is a factor, but has to balanced with price, else we'd
> all be carrying satellite phones. For me, T-Mo hits that sweet
> spot. It works almost everywhere I go, and at about 60% of what
> I'd pay Verizon for a comparable level of service (minutes, data
> allowance, etc.)
For me the difference is $55/month for T-Mobile vs $60/month for VZW.
The level of service ie comparable since both plans give me more
minutes and more data than I'll ever be able to use (T-Mo provided more
minutes but since I can't use 'em, who cares?)
My $5 gets me 4G instead of 3G at my friend's house on the 3 days a
week I'm there, gets me coverage at my house if I turn off WiFi and
gives me a safety net of coverage when I visit my sister 375 miles away
with VERY spotty T-Mo coverage and solid 3g or better coverage from VZW
for the entire distance. It also gives me coverage at my son's house
or at my daughter's house if I visit, they both have WiFi but absolute
ZERO coverage from T-Mobile w/o WiFi.
I think it's worth the $5/month but..... I should also mention that if
I return to T-Mobile I'd be saving nothing since the plan I had seems
to be gone? Looking at the "value" plan I'd be paying the same
$60/month I'm paying VZW for essentially the same plan.
In message <Xns9FD0AF9F8F310xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1> someone claiming to
be XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> typed:
>DevilsPGD <Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
>> In message <MPG.296e31f079f830649898c1@news.justthe.net> someone
>> claiming to be Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> typed:
>>
>>>In article <Xns9FD06B3AC87Bxs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1>, XS11E says...
>
>>>> So is it worth $5/mo or $60/year? I really don't know but I'm
>>>> not sorry I made the switch.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't be, either. Coverage should be the #1 reason you choose
>>>a carrier.
>>
>> Yup. Ignore whether they provide the features or functionally you
>> want, or whether they cost 2x-50x more, or even carry the phone
>> you want, coverage coverage coverage!
>
>Yup, yourself. There's no reason to have a cell phone if it doesn't
>work where you need it to work, is there?
>
>Tell me what use are features or functionality if you can't connect?
>How does a 'better' phone help if it is useful only as a paperweight?
>What does a lower price matter if you can't make a call with a cheaper
>service?
Going from adequate to slightly better than adequate coverage comes with
a substantial price tag. T-Mobile's service is more than sufficient for
my own needs when I'm traveling in the US, given just how much cheaper
it is vs the alternatives.
--
It's always darkest before dawn. So if you're going to
steal your neighbor's newspaper, that's the time to do it.
On 1/4/2012 7:04 PM, DevilsPGD wrote:
>
> Going from adequate to slightly better than adequate coverage comes with
> a substantial price tag. T-Mobile's service is more than sufficient for
> my own needs when I'm traveling in the US, given just how much cheaper
> it is vs the alternatives.
>
My goodness! How did we get by without any cell phones just a couple
decades ago?
In message <je3abj$oer$1@dont-email.me> someone claiming to be cameo
<cameo@unreal.invalid> typed:
>On 1/4/2012 7:04 PM, DevilsPGD wrote:
>>
>> Going from adequate to slightly better than adequate coverage comes with
>> a substantial price tag. T-Mobile's service is more than sufficient for
>> my own needs when I'm traveling in the US, given just how much cheaper
>> it is vs the alternatives.
>>
>My goodness! How did we get by without any cell phones just a couple
>decades ago?
Sure. We "got by" without antibiotics at one point too, why bother with
those?
--
It's always darkest before dawn. So if you're going to
steal your neighbor's newspaper, that's the time to do it.
At 04 Jan 2012 22:33:50 -0700 XS11E wrote:
> DevilsPGD <Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
> > Going from adequate to slightly better than adequate coverage
> > comes with a substantial price tag.
>
> It WAS $5/month, now I see no difference with T-Mo's current fees.
>
If you don't use many minutes, you can sign up for Walmart's exclusive T-
Mo prepaid plan with 100 minutes talk time and 2GB data for $30/month.
Or, you could take a T-Mo Value Plan- $35/month for 500 mins. plus
$10/month for 2GB data. You give up any phone subsidies on either of
these plans however, but that's $600 cheaper than VZW or AT&T for a
comparable plan over two years- more than enough to compensate for the
loss of a subsidy.
Sure they do. What they don't offer is LTE. Just as EVDO and UMTS were
different flavors of 3G, there is more than one flavor of 4G.
According to the ITU originally, nothing offered by any US carrier,
including LTE, was 4G. They originally defined 4G as 100Mb/s for mobile
terminals and 1Gb/sec for stationary terminals. About a year ago they
reluctantly backpedaled, declaring that their original definition of 4G
is now called "IMT-Advanced" and that the now-undefined term 4G "may also
be applied to the forerunners of these technologies, LTE and WiMax, and
to other evolved 3G technologies providing a substantial level of
improvement in performance and capabilities with respect to the initial
third generation systems now deployed..."
So, in short, anything faster than the original 3G deployments is 4G.
Agreed you can have the best price plan around worthless with out good
coverage
--
AL'S COMPUTERS
"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.296e31f079f830649898c1@news.justthe.net.. .
> In article <Xns9FD06B3AC87Bxs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1>, XS11E says...
>
>
>> So is it worth $5/mo or $60/year? I really don't know but I'm not
>> sorry I made the switch.
>
> I wouldn't be, either. Coverage should be the #1 reason you choose a
> carrier.
>
>
>
> --
> Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
> sjsobol@JustThe.net
In message <Xns9FD0E5889A283xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1> someone claiming to
be XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> typed:
>DevilsPGD <Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
>> Going from adequate to slightly better than adequate coverage
>> comes with a substantial price tag.
>
>It WAS $5/month, now I see no difference with T-Mo's current fees.
I'm currently paying $10/year on T-Mobile. Does Verizon have something
similar?
--
It's always darkest before dawn. So if you're going to
steal your neighbor's newspaper, that's the time to do it.
On 1/4/2012 10:13 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 04 Jan 2012 22:33:50 -0700 XS11E wrote:
>> DevilsPGD<Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Going from adequate to slightly better than adequate coverage
>>> comes with a substantial price tag.
>>
>> It WAS $5/month, now I see no difference with T-Mo's current fees.
>>
>
> If you don't use many minutes, you can sign up for Walmart's exclusive T-
> Mo prepaid plan with 100 minutes talk time and 2GB data for $30/month.
>
> Or, you could take a T-Mo Value Plan- $35/month for 500 mins. plus
> $10/month for 2GB data. You give up any phone subsidies on either of
> these plans however, but that's $600 cheaper than VZW or AT&T for a
> comparable plan over two years- more than enough to compensate for the
> loss of a subsidy.
That's a very good deal. Once the roaming from the failed merger kicks
in T-Mobile may become a viable choice for many people that can't use it
now.
> Going from adequate to slightly better than adequate coverage comes with
> a substantial price tag. T-Mobile's service is more than sufficient for
> my own needs when I'm traveling in the US, given just how much cheaper
> it is vs the alternatives.
The only T-Mobile service that's cheaper than better-coverage
alternatives is their $10/year prepaid (after you spend $100 and achieve
gold status). I keep a T-Mobile phone active with that plan.
If you make more than 15 minutes or so of calls per month then Pageplus
is cheaper, and has far better coverage.
On 1/4/2012 3:01 PM, DevilsPGD wrote:
> In message<MPG.296e31f079f830649898c1@news.justthe.ne t> someone
> claiming to be Steve Sobol<sjsobol@JustThe.net> typed:
>
>> In article<Xns9FD06B3AC87Bxs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1>, XS11E says...
>>
>>
>>> So is it worth $5/mo or $60/year? I really don't know but I'm not
>>> sorry I made the switch.
>>
>> I wouldn't be, either. Coverage should be the #1 reason you choose a
>> carrier.
>
> Yup. Ignore whether they provide the features or functionally you want,
> or whether they cost 2x-50x more, or even carry the phone you want,
> coverage coverage coverage!
It all depends on where you want coverage. If you never leave urban
areas then T-Mobile is usually fine.
When I have international visitors they often want to go places like
national parks, out to the California coast, or other non-urban areas
where T-Mobile often has no service at all. So I lend them a Pageplus
phone rather than have them get a SIM card from T-Mobile.
Once the roaming from the failed AT&T merger penalties kick in then
T-Mobile may be more viable, but I'll wait to see what happens with
that. Maybe prepaid won't be included.
> I'm somewhat in a similar situation with T-Mo as I also live in a city
> where its HQ is, yet I find quite a few places with useless signal
> strength. Yet I am staying with them for all those other reasons,
> especially the WiFi calling. In residential areas I can usually find
> free WiFi where there is weak T-Mo signal.
> When I first became a T-Mo customer I also had no signal at home, just
> about 2 miles direct line from their HQ because of a hill in between.
> However, soon I found out that the lack of signal was not the fault of
> T-Mobile but due to difficulties of getting permit for new towers.
> Everybody wants good coverage but no towers in their backyard.
Where I live I had no T-Mobile coverage for years. It went back to the
old 1900 MHz network operated by Pacific Bell then Cingular, which got
sold to T-Mobile. It took about eight years for a cell to be permitted
and installed (most of the eight years was fighting with neighbors,
until T-Mobile finally relented and moved the site a couple of hundred
feet away from the neighbor's houses. Another cell that T-Mobile wanted
in the area didn't happen because the city was requiring that the
equipment, on the roof of a building, be shielded from view, and
T-Mobile refused so they did not get approval.
It's always amusing to see people claim that T-Mobile works fine where
they live, since that's not the place you need coverage the most since
presumably you have some other phone access at home, be it a landline or
VOIP. The real issue is if a carrier works in the places you're likely
to travel to or through, though I suppose there's always pay phones
available for outgoing calls.
> It's always amusing to see people claim that T-Mobile works fine where
> they live, since that's not the place you need coverage the most since
> presumably you have some other phone access at home, be it a landline
> or VOIP.
Not if you're young. Over 25% of US households have given up landlines,
and nearly half of people aged 18-30 don't have one as of June 2010, and
those numbers have doubled since 2007- they may be much higher now.
<http://m.cbsnews.com/fullstory.rbml?...0&videofeed=36
>
> The real issue is if a carrier works in the places you're
> likely to travel to or through, though I suppose there's always pay
> phones available for outgoing calls.
Why is that the "real issue"? If you'll allow me a silly analogy, I'd
find owning a pickup truck very convenient maybe two or three times a year,
when buying/hauling furniture, appliances, lumber, or landscaping material.
The other 362 days a year it'd be an inconvenience and extra expense in
fuel costs. It's preferable and cheaper for me to own a sedan that seats
five and gets 40MPG, and just rent a truck or pay for delivery 2-3 times
a year as needed.
Now look at cellular. 45 weeks of the year my phone is within 20 miles
of my house, commuting to work, running errands, shuttling kids around,
etc., in urban or suburban areas where pretty much any carrier offers
adequate coverage. 3 or 4 weeks a year I might travel on business to
other equally urban or suburban areas equally covered by all carriers.
The remaining 3-4 I might travel with family, and often those
destinations are also fairly urban, suburban, or sufficiently touristy
enough to have adequate coverage (Disney, Vegas, ski resorts, visiting
family/friends, etc.) That leaves the odd trip to the "wilderness";
camping, national parks, etc. Sometimes T-Mo has coverage, often they
don't. Sometimes Verizon doesn't either. Just this year our family's two
camping trips, Rocky Mountain Nat'l Park, and a Girl Scout camp north of
Ft. Collins, Co., had no, zero, zilch, cellular coverage at all. (Though
in fairness, Verizon had spotty service up to about a mile from the GS
camp, where T-Mo had quit several miles back.) RMNP goes dead pretty
quickly for all carriers in the park on either side. On Trail Ridge Road,
the main road through the park that climbs to 12,000 feet, you can
sometimes get a signal from outside the park on the stretches not blocked
by other peaks.
So, for *maybe* one week out of 52, paying 50% more all year for Verizon
service (I'm on an old cheap grandfathered T-Mo plan, so YMMV) makes as
much sense as owning a pickup just in case I need a load of mulch next
summer. If I didn't already have a Page Plus phone for backup, (mostly
for laughs/insurance- I haven't used a single minute of airtime since
early 2010) I could buy a $40 Verizon Prepaid phone at Walmart before
each camping trip, throw it away at the end (probably unused), and still
be hundreds of dollars ahead each year.
On 1/5/2012 7:20 AM, SMS wrote:
> It all depends on where you want coverage. If you never leave urban
> areas then T-Mobile is usually fine.
>
> When I have international visitors they often want to go places like
> national parks, out to the California coast, or other non-urban areas
> where T-Mobile often has no service at all. So I lend them a Pageplus
> phone rather than have them get a SIM card from T-Mobile.
At 05 Jan 2012 12:44:47 -0800 cameo wrote:
> On 1/5/2012 7:20 AM, SMS wrote:
> > It all depends on where you want coverage. If you never leave urban
> > areas then T-Mobile is usually fine.
> >
> > When I have international visitors they often want to go places like
> > national parks, out to the California coast, or other non-urban areas
> > where T-Mobile often has no service at all. So I lend them a Pageplus
> > phone rather than have them get a SIM card from T-Mobile.
>
> Which cell network is PagePlus using?
Verizon, but it can roam in almost any CDMA network, albeit at extra cost.
In article <4f05c14a$0$1680$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...
> It's always amusing to see people claim that T-Mobile works fine where
> they live, since that's not the place you need coverage the most since
> presumably you have some other phone access at home, be it a landline or
> VOIP. The real issue is if a carrier works in the places you're likely
> to travel to or through, though I suppose there's always pay phones
> available for outgoing calls.
God, you're arrogant sometimes.
If I say I have good coverage where I live, who the hell are you to tell
me I'm wrong? Have you ever even been in the Victor Valley? (I mean for
more than fifteen minutes, driving through the area on I-15.)
In article <60m9g7dck1kk47g7shh6tchu2uqdj8si0m@4ax.com>, DevilsPGD
says...
> >I wouldn't be, either. Coverage should be the #1 reason you choose a
> >carrier.
>
> Yup. Ignore whether they provide the features or functionally you want,
> or whether they cost 2x-50x more, or even carry the phone you want,
> coverage coverage coverage!
The #1 reason, not the only reason. I.E. the most important reason. Do I
have to spell this out for you?
>> Going from adequate to slightly better than adequate coverage comes with
>> a substantial price tag. T-Mobile's service is more than sufficient for
>> my own needs when I'm traveling in the US, given just how much cheaper
>> it is vs the alternatives.
>
>The only T-Mobile service that's cheaper than better-coverage
>alternatives is their $10/year prepaid (after you spend $100 and achieve
>gold status). I keep a T-Mobile phone active with that plan.
>
>If you make more than 15 minutes or so of calls per month then Pageplus
>is cheaper, and has far better coverage.
It's difficult to compare the costs between T-mobile and PagePlus
plans since yearly financial commitment comes into play. PagePlus
offers 2000 non-rollover minutes/year for $80.00, which is far cheaper
than T-mobile if you use all those minutes yearly. T-mobile is cheaper
over the years for those who simply want to keep a cellphone activated
for $10.00/year.
T-Mo to its users ... 
Linear Mode
