Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 101

Thread: Amazon's plans and looking forward

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,851
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    Congress and the FTC need to ban non-government-mandated fees that are tacked on. TV is the worst with the "Sports fee", and the "Local channel fee" that all should be part of the original price. I suspect that competition in wireless and TV would be a bit stiffer if these fees were banned, and more people would cut the cord when they realized what they were actually paying for a TV service before signing up.
    We need a national mandate, with teeth, that says the ONLY price you can advertise is the out the door price.

    Either that, or the customers need to stop rewarding these businesses for doing this crap.



    I think they'll pull a Verizon and include it for "free" with the Magenta Plus.
    like I said, they'll initially include it with the current Magenta plan.

    And then they'll drop Magenta for Pink, and we'll see Pink Essentials, Pink, and Pink Plus--and bet your bottom dollar 5G will be only on Pink Plus with a bunch of other features most people wouldn't pay for.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,851
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post
    T-Mo and Sprint represent a special niche in the wireless business- the lower price for less service/less quality "good enough" tier that McDonald's serves.
    for better or for worse, I'm beginning to believe that what you said is NOT the case. True, years ago when my employer foisted Sprint on us, we were *wishing* for two cans and a string. But from what I've seen around here with both T-Mo and AT&T, they sure seem equivalent. AT&T has no inherent advantage that I've seen.

    That may change as I continue to evaluate things with AT&T, but will it change to a meaningful level? I'm doubting that.

    It sure looks like AT&T is playing on their name plus their integration with other services--for example, bundling a lot of their services together (cellular, TV, fiber broadband) comes up with a far friendlier price than if you bought those services from AT&T separately. If you want those specific services, great.

    But to compare cellular service by itself with T-Mo, I'm not so sure that AT&T puts T-Mo into the "we're better, you're just good enough" bucket. AT&T overcharges for their cellular service, is what I'm seeing. They declare themselves to be better, and then act like it--without actually being better.

    And T-Mo is likely stuck living on its reputation as well, as the "less quality/good enough" ghetto provider it used to be prior to Legere.

    From what I can tell around here, anyway.



    You seemed to miss the joke. The point was New T-Mo (and by extension, your hero Legere) is no different than AT&T or Verizon. Once the feds give T-Mo the fast pass to the front of the line, they will act and operate exactly the same the big two. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."
    I agree. Anyone who doesn't see that right up front, has his head stuck in the sand. Some of those heads here (you know who I'm talking about) are there actively and willingly, resisting any efforts to pull said heads *out* of the sand to stare reality in the face.

    And in fact, we've all seen over the last year or so that T-Mo has changed from "uncarrier" to "re-carrier". Carrier 2.0. Meet the same boss...

    I guess my question for you, since you seem to think you've got me figured out, is why are you taking the long way around? If you want to subscribe to a large cellular carrier with ubiquitous coverage and cutting edge technology, why aren't you with AT&T or Verizon already? Why hitch your wagon to T-Mo when they were none of those things and hope they got there eventually?
    I don't know about him, but I can speak for myself: I went with the little guy (back then, T-Mo was the little guy) to give him a shot at earning my business. I didn't want to give AT&T/VZW my business if I didn't have to. I was willing to take a shot.

    And frankly, for 5 years, T-Mo proved themselves to me as the little guy that did everything right. I can't begin to tell you how service improved and how well things worked.

    But now....eh. We'll see.

    Careful what you wish for... Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. New T-Mo might not be the fun ride you think it'll be. Of course that doesn't matter, because some people here would defend T-Mo to the end even if they started printing their brochures on the skins of murdered puppies.
    Gee, I have NO idea about whom you are speaking....

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    589
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Mint
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by adam1991 View Post
    Long story (stories), but they went from taking care of their customers to telling their customers, "sure we engineered it horribly, but you bought it, it's yours now. Sucks to be you. That'll be $5000, thank you."
    Maybe I'm the exception to the rule, but I had a good experience. I had a cracked engine block that was leaking due to a bad casting, and they basically rebuilt my whole engine with a new block, and replaced the coolant, oil, head gasket, pump, etc. The dealer also did the serpentine belt for parts only since it had to come off anyway.

    It started when the bean counters took over, and results began in 1998. Look up their V6 transmissions. Look up VCM. Look up CVTs. Look up their original Civic Hybrid batteries and management system. Look up their current turbo engines and gas in the oil. Their engineering has sucked for 20 years now, and their willingness to take care of the customer went from class leading to "I could have bought a Chrysler and gotten this same treatment".
    The one thing I will criticize them for is their V-6 Accord. That car has so many weird wear issues because it was never really designed for a V-6, they should have kept to the 4 cylinder which was fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by adam1991 View Post
    We need a national mandate, with teeth, that says the ONLY price you can advertise is the out the door price.

    Either that, or the customers need to stop rewarding these businesses for doing this crap.
    It has to be regulation. In many cases, customers have little or no choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by adam1991 View Post
    It sure looks like AT&T is playing on their name plus their integration with other services--for example, bundling a lot of their services together (cellular, TV, fiber broadband) comes up with a far friendlier price than if you bought those services from AT&T separately. If you want those specific services, great.
    In metro markets, and even many suburbs, T-Mobile is just as good as AT&T/Verizon. The difference is when you're out in the sticks, and while T-Mobile has built out in many areas, their network is swiss cheese and poorly built out there. Also, there are some markets where Verizon is dominant. In Rhode Island, for example, Verizon has plugged up holes all over the place with small cells, and no one else is anywhere close as they are reliant on macros. That being said, a friend in RI's family switched to T-Mobile because of international so go figure.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,597
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post
    Breaking up monopolies and protecting consumers from anti-competitive behavior is one of the functions of government. If you don't like it, make a make a $3/minute call on your Ma Bell phone to complain to your congressman, or stop to get some $10/gallon gas at the Standard Oil station on the way to a protest rally about it
    This isn't a breakup of a monopoly. If that was the case then the duopoly of AT&T and Verizon would be targeted. Combined, they have the majority of cellular customers. Their nearest competitor is a distant third. They have access to customers such as government & corporate contracts that would never think to consider T-Mobile or Sprint. But you're not advocating anything be done about them. You're advocating that Sprint and T-Mobile not be allowed to join forces to compete against this duopoly. You want the government to insure the power and continued success of the duopoly to dominate the market. That's actually what you're advocating.

    I take the opposite position. If they're not going to be broken apart (which nothing indicates they will be) I support that they have to face stronger competition. A company that can actually expand their network to compete for the customers they can't compete for now.

    You seem to believe it will either because 3 is more than 2 or because Johhny is just such a stand up guy (or fueled by a desire to destroy his rivals) he'll add some additional level of competitive pressure that AT&T and Verizon don't already feel from each other.
    It has nothing to do with how stand-up John is. But history shows that he and DT has run the company in a very competitive manner. They took the company from #4 to #3. They lead the market in net customer adds for how many years now? T-Mobile's own corporate philosophy is a great predictor of their desire to bring the heat. Both DT and SoftBank have great incentive to maximizing profit by stealing more market share because they want a bigger return on their investments. These are market-specific reasons that I give for my prediction. You don't do that for yours. You just claim they're mysteriously going to stop competing after going to the trouble of doing this merger and taking on Sprint's debt.


    If all the fast food joints merged, and decided to become another fast casual chain, Applebee's, Chili's and TGI Friday's
    Which would never happen because there is market demand for fast food joints. So somebody would always come along to fill that demand. And even with MVNO's, somebody is going to come along and fill that demand as well.


    I'm against the merger because it will (probably*) destroy the entire second tier if cellular service.
    What makes you think the second tier of cellular service is financially viable when Sprint just lost $2.2 billion in a quarter? What do you think will happen to 2nd tier when Sprint is less and less able to compete, less and less able to keep up with expanding 5G technologies? When Sprint loses market share to those who want more than it can provide? You and others want Sprint to stay around because of perceived benefits of what they bring to the market. As a former business owner, you know you can't stay in business losing money indefinitely. You don't address this point and instead gloss right over it.

    The fact is, if Sprint was profitable and expanding, SoftBank would be doing that instead of giving up control to DT and taking what they can get.

    I guess my question for you, since you seem to think you've got me figured out, is why are you taking the long way around? If you want to subscribe to a large cellular carrier with ubiquitous coverage and cutting edge technology, why aren't you with AT&T or Verizon already? Why hitch your wagon to T-Mo when they were none of those things and hope they got there eventually?
    T-Mobile is fine for my needs. I get coverage where I want it. As for technology, I get faster speeds than I would get with the other two companies. That doesn't mean I don't advocate for a more competitive market than one dominated by a duopoly who is in lockstep with each other and which controls the majority of the market. That's where we differ.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,851
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    The difference is when you're out in the sticks, and while T-Mobile has built out in many areas, their network is swiss cheese and poorly built out there.
    I think I will dispute that.

    My most recent experience was in the Outer Banks, when I got tired of T-Mo's bad service and so I went to the AT&T store to start up service.

    And guess what: AT&T's service in the same places sucked *exactly* as bad as T-Mobile's.

    So far, my experience in my areas is that AT&T service is really, overall, no different than T-Mobile's service.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,597
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    Look at Canada for what less competition does to a market. They have 3 carriers and absurdly high prices.
    Why should anyone look at Canada? A much smaller market and much different market dynamics. It's really not an accurate comparison at all.

    A combined T-Sprint would take a lot of pressure off of VZ and T
    Actually a bankrupt Sprint and a small T-Mobile would take the most pressure off of them. That is outcome they are going for.


    So in one post, you're claiming that T-Sprint will cause all this great competition, and then in another, you're claiming that they won't really need to compete anymore, and they can all just sit back and be fat and happy
    I've always maintained that the new T-Mobile will continue to compete as they have always done. I have never said that they'll "sit back and be fat and happy". You're either making up that I said that or getting me confused with elecconnec:

    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post
    Verizon and AT&T don't care because they already know how this movie ends: another member joins the exclusive old boy's club, puts on the smoking jacket, lights a cigar, drinks some brandy, and everyone pats each other on the back and laughs all the way to the bank with our hard earned money.
    Regardless stop making false statements about what I said.


    That's why the ideal buyer is a company that can either significantly reduce their costs of operation, like a consortium of Altice, Cox, Charter, and Comcast, or else gain other benefits from having a wireless network and a massive fiber backbone, like Amazon.
    Yes, just more dreams that are not based on real world reality. The reality is Sprint is hemorrhaging money and nobody else is making any offer to pay to fix that mess. Only T-Mobile.


    Your logic is shaped like a delicious super pretzel. With the merger, we would need MORE government intervention in order to regulate fewer players on the market, versus the more conservative approach of not letting them merger, and letting the free market take care of things.
    That's not letting the free market take care of things. T-Mobile and Sprint are both publicly traded companies. If you're so interested in free market, you'd let Sprint be taken over by the highest bidder. But you're not. You want the government to interrupt the natural market process then you want the small companies to somehow compete. That's really the accurate picture of what you advocate.

    I favor the more conservative approach of breaking companies up and letting them compete on their own versus trying to micro-manage how they operate with specific regulations,
    If you support letting T-Mobile & Sprint merge as they are and using the anti-trust laws to breakup AT&T and Verizon, I'd support you there. In fact, that's a great idea, the DOJ should require that AT&T and Verizon divest their assets to Dish to make the fourth carrier. Why take the assets and customers away from the #3? AT&T could sell off Cricket to Dish instead. Make all three carriers be nice and even if you're going to do it that way.


    What's so bizarre is that Ergen is now trying to help the merger get through. It's in his economic interest to block the merger and then sell off his spectrum at a massive profit.
    Yeah you've said that the whole time. Ergen disagrees with you. I guess that's why you're not running his company.


    They've built out a ton of towers that don't have most of their spectrum even lit up. It's not a resources issue, it's an issue of where their priorities are, and they cut corners as hard as they could to make a "coverage" map for TV ads. They could have built a network to rival that of the CLR carriers but they chose not to.
    Of course its a resources issues. Simply look at the quarterly reports of AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile. AT&T and Verizon have a lot more revenue, more profit and thus more resources. T-Mobile never had the resources to build "a network to rival that of the CLR carriers". That's the whole point. After a merger they'd be in a better position to do that.


    I'd bet that most of the T-Mobile customer base rarely finds themselves in a lot of the rural areas T and VZ cover better, and probably even less of the Sprint customer base does.
    The existing customers aren't the point. It's the customers that won't currently consider Sprint or T-Mobile that are the point. That's where the great potential and growth lies for T-Mobile.


    It's about being intellectually dishonest, and continually changing your positions
    Neither of which I have done. Intellectually dishonest would be for you to make accusations that someone said something and then you're completely unable to quote where they said that.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,851
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    I've always maintained that the new T-Mobile will continue to compete as they have always done. I have never said that they'll "sit back and be fat and happy".
    T-Mobile has already decided to sit back and get fat and happy. Uncarrier went away a year or two ago, to be replaced by ReCarrier. T-Mobile clearly has VZW Envy, and has decided that enough uncarrier is enough--it's time to go full carrier.

    You can dispute that. You WILL dispute that. It won't change the facts of how T-Mobile has changed their business over the last year or two, and is no longer behaving like that scrappy underdog Legere always talked about.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,597
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by adam1991 View Post
    T-Mobile has already decided to sit back and get fat and happy. Uncarrier went away a year or two ago, to be replaced by ReCarrier. T-Mobile clearly has VZW Envy, and has decided that enough uncarrier is enough--it's time to go full carrier.

    You can dispute that. You WILL dispute that. It won't change the facts of how T-Mobile has changed their business over the last year or two, and is no longer behaving like that scrappy underdog Legere always talked about.
    They don't have to behave like the underdog when they're starting to surpass one of the top dogs.

    AT&T had 204,000 postpaid net losses last quarter

    https://investors.att.com/financial-...-earnings/2019

    That's compared to T-Mobile's 1 million postpaid net additions.

    https://investor.t-mobile.com/financ...s/default.aspx

    In addition T-Mobile had record low 0.88% postpaid phone churn which was better than AT&T's 0.93% postpaid phone churn. So yeah, Legere is not just cruising on easy street. He's still competing quite well.

    But look at the bright side, you'll be able to really screw up his churn stat this quarter when you port your service over to AT&T. When is that happening, btw??

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,851
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    gee, I *never* would have guessed that you'd have responded like that...

    Stop claiming I said things that I never said. When will you stop claiming I said things that I never said?

    Anyway: when I say that T-Mo has switched from Uncarrier to Recarrier, it has nothing to do with whatever stats you posted. It has to do with how they've chosen to do business, and how they switched dramatically a year or two ago.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,177
    Device(s)
    iPhone X, iPhone 7+
    Carrier(s)
    ATT Prepaid, RP
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Now that there are inexpensive MVNOs that can provide a good backup network, I would be more likely to try T-Mobile again. I've decided that you can't depend on one carrier being everywhere. Though this requires the ability to afford multiple phones, and not everyone is willing or able to do that.

    But right now T-Mobile is more than I want to spend. $70 for their Magenta plan for 1 line, vs the $45 plan (with 15GB) I have on Verizon Prepaid. Though it would be tempting since postpaid supports the Cellular Apple Watch ($10/month?) The 55 and older plans start at $50, but I don't qualify yet
    iPhone X is my current primary phone. I have older model iPhones and Moto phones available on other lines. Currently prepaid, though would consider postpaid on right plan.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,851
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by kevink1 View Post
    Now that there are inexpensive MVNOs that can provide a good backup network, I would be more likely to try T-Mobile again. I've decided that you can't depend on one carrier being everywhere. Though this requires the ability to afford multiple phones, and not everyone is willing or able to do that.
    eh. Get a solid unlocked universal phone, along the lines of a Pixel or an iPhone, and just carry SIM cards with you. Swap out as necessary.

    Sure, it's not as convenient as whipping out a charged phone that's already turned on and running and simply making a call or hitting an app or web site. But it's cheaper and does the job just as well.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,315
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    I've never understood the comparison with Canada only having 3 carriers and the implication being that causes their high pricing. There seem to be countries in Europe with 3 major carriers that have lower prices than the US with 4 carriers now. How about Mexico? Aren't there really only 2 carriers there? Nextel & Moviestar, how is the pricing there? The companies charge what the market will bear, and what the government allows. Does Canada have antitrust laws that prohibit price fixing?

    Asking for a friend.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    589
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Mint
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    What makes you think the second tier of cellular service is financially viable when Sprint just lost $2.2 billion in a quarter? What do you think will happen to 2nd tier when Sprint is less and less able to compete, less and less able to keep up with expanding 5G technologies?
    Sprint is uniquely positioned to roll out 5G in a less capital intensive way than the other carriers over the entirety of major metro markets on their n41 spectrum.

    Quote Originally Posted by adam1991 View Post
    So far, my experience in my areas is that AT&T service is really, overall, no different than T-Mobile's service.
    That's ONE place, and there are probably NIMBY issues and no steel in the air in those locations, not even for the mighty Verizon (who is really about equal to AT&T).

    Around suburbia, they are similar, and T-Mobile actually has a slight advantage in many urban/suburban markets due to site density. However, the reality is that large sections of T-Mobile's rural networks are poorly built, have little spectrum deployed, and are generally far worse than the already mediocre networks that AT&T and Verizon have.

    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    That's compared to T-Mobile's 1 million postpaid net additions.

    https://investor.t-mobile.com/financ...s/default.aspx
    Just another reason T-Mo doesn't need the merger, they just need to keep doing what they're already doing.

    Quote Originally Posted by kevink1 View Post
    Now that there are inexpensive MVNOs that can provide a good backup network, I would be more likely to try T-Mobile again. I've decided that you can't depend on one carrier being everywhere. Though this requires the ability to afford multiple phones, and not everyone is willing or able to do that.
    I wish they would just all get along and roam on each other. With VoLTE, it would be trivial to have a phone that would work on any major US network.

    Quote Originally Posted by adam1991 View Post
    eh. Get a solid unlocked universal phone, along the lines of a Pixel or an iPhone, and just carry SIM cards with you. Swap out as necessary.
    You're never going to know what has service. If you're that worried about your pockets, get a Pixel 3A, put it on Google Fi. That gets you T-Mo, Sprint, and USCC. Then, get an iPhone Xs Max or OnePlus 7 Pro and put a Verizon SIM in one slot and an AT&T SIM in the other (one could be an MVNO), and you've got all 5 carriers and, depending on the MVNOs or plans, most or all of their roaming partners.

    If the Pixel 4 has DSDS, you could do Google Fi on the eSIM, and Verizon or AT&T on the regular SIM, but you'd still need 2 phones to have all 5 carriers.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    589
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Mint
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    Why should anyone look at Canada? A much smaller market and much different market dynamics. It's really not an accurate comparison at all.
    They have 3 carriers. It's not working so well for them with less competition.

    Actually a bankrupt Sprint and a small T-Mobile would take the most pressure off of them. That is outcome they are going for.
    It's not like T-Mobile is just going to stop competing if Sprint files bankruptcy. That's sort of... bizarre. Also, bankruptcy doesn't mean they just turn the lights off and walk out, it means they are filing to bankruptcy protection to restructure... if someone else doesn't buy them in the meantime.

    I've always maintained that the new T-Mobile will continue to compete as they have always done. I have never said that they'll "sit back and be fat and happy". You're either making up that I said that or getting me confused with elecconnec:
    You claimed that they would raise prices to maximize shareholder value, i.e. they would be fat and happy. And of course they would raise prices in a less competitive market, that's literally their goal as a publicly held company to maximize shareholder value.

    That's not letting the free market take care of things. T-Mobile and Sprint are both publicly traded companies. If you're so interested in free market, you'd let Sprint be taken over by the highest bidder. But you're not. You want the government to interrupt the natural market process then you want the small companies to somehow compete. That's really the accurate picture of what you advocate.
    I've explained conservative vs. liberal theories of antitrust and regulation to you twice, and you still don't, or more likely, won't, comprehend it.

    If you support letting T-Mobile & Sprint merge as they are and using the anti-trust laws to breakup AT&T and Verizon, I'd support you there. In fact, that's a great idea, the DOJ should require that AT&T and Verizon divest their assets to Dish to make the fourth carrier. Why take the assets and customers away from the #3? AT&T could sell off Cricket to Dish instead. Make all three carriers be nice and even if you're going to do it that way.
    That's not the question at hand. Breaking up Verizon and AT&T isn't going to make a new carrier.

    Yeah you've said that the whole time. Ergen disagrees with you. I guess that's why you're not running his company.
    What Ergen is doing makes no sense. Unless he's got some secret plan that no one else has figured out.

    Of course its a resources issues. Simply look at the quarterly reports of AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile. AT&T and Verizon have a lot more revenue, more profit and thus more resources. T-Mobile never had the resources to build "a network to rival that of the CLR carriers". That's the whole point. After a merger they'd be in a better position to do that.
    The corners they cut didn't save them much on the cost of the towers, although it would cost more to build more towers. Unless they just have such minimal backhaul going to them that it wouldn't matter, although it would still help if there was a lot of load on a single sector.

    The existing customers aren't the point. It's the customers that won't currently consider Sprint or T-Mobile that are the point. That's where the great potential and growth lies for T-Mobile.
    They seem to be doing pretty well with them. It will also take a lot more than just rural tower densities. AFAICT, T and VZ are ahead in covering resorts, venues, in-building DAS, all that stuff that impacts people just as much but is much harder to see on a coverage map.

    Neither of which I have done. Intellectually dishonest would be for you to make accusations that someone said something and then you're completely unable to quote where they said that.
    You change your position constantly and twist yourself into a pretzel trying to justify whatever T-Mobile is doing even when you know it's not defensible, or contradicts your own position that you stated a post or two before.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,597
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by adam1991 View Post
    Stop claiming I said things that I never said. When will you stop claiming I said things that I never said?
    I quoted your full unedited quote. And then I provided my response. And my response doesn't say you "said" anything else.

    Anyway: when I say that T-Mo has switched from Uncarrier to Recarrier, it has nothing to do with whatever stats you posted. It has to do with how they've chosen to do business, and how they switched dramatically a year or two ago.
    I don't see a difference that you see. The stats show they are continuing to offer a service which attracts customers to jump to T-Mobile from other carriers. They are doing that now and they did it two years ago according to the quarterly reports.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. WWYD: Old T-mobile plan and moving forward
    By Robynsus in forum General Prepaid discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-08-2014, 09:13 PM
  2. $17 EPP plan and call forwarding
    By D-layer in forum TELUS/Koodo/Public Mobile
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-11-2007, 04:42 PM
  3. Bell Question about family plan and call forwarding
    By thebigwoof in forum Bell/Virgin/Lucky/Solo
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-06-2006, 07:55 AM
  4. Amazon, Family Plans, and Contract Length
    By AdamfromChi in forum AT&T
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-29-2004, 10:18 AM
  5. Amazon Rate Plans and Updates
    By Ludwig in forum T-Mobile
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-27-2002, 08:36 PM

Bookmarks