Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
T-Mobile has fastest, most available 5G network in the country
1 view
Skip to first unread message
badgolferman
Jul 14, 2021, 5:13:01 PM7/14/21
to
For SMS:
T-Mobile has maintained its title as the fastest and most available 5G
network provider in the country. This is all thanks to the newly released
5G report by Opensignal.
According to the report, T-Mobile is able to give its customers the fastest
5G speeds and a 5G signal more often and in more places than anyone else.
This is the third consecutive quarter that T-Mobile holds this title.
https://www.tmonews.com/2021/07/opensignal-t-mobile-fastest-available-5g-network-country/
T-Mobile has maintained its title as the fastest and most available 5G
network provider in the country. This is all thanks to the newly released
5G report by Opensignal.
According to the report, T-Mobile is able to give its customers the fastest
5G speeds and a 5G signal more often and in more places than anyone else.
This is the third consecutive quarter that T-Mobile holds this title.
https://www.tmonews.com/2021/07/opensignal-t-mobile-fastest-available-5g-network-country/
paul
Jul 14, 2021, 5:33:01 PM7/14/21
to
badgolferman wrote on 14.07.2021 16:12
excuses for Verizon, much like the apologists are always making excuses for
Apple's flaws.
What's interesting is Steve often comes up with an _excuse_ why any fact
that goes against his illogically emotional shills for Verizon MVNO's.
Steve is no different from the apologists in that manner as he will deflect
and blame everyone but Verizon for T-Mobile's faults (just watch).
It's easy to predict, years in advance even, what apologists & Steve do.
An actual adult looks at _both_ sides of every logical argument.
Like I do.
For example, I just googled the following to see what it comes up with:
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=who+fastest+5G+cellular+usa>
Here are the results (which I provide because I'm _balanced_ in logic).
<https://i.postimg.cc/jjSbtZNP/fastest5g01.jpg>
1st hit:
*T-Mobile offers the fastest 5G in the US, but not always the best*
<https://www.androidauthority.com/opensignal-best-5g-test-t-mobile-verizon-att-1643236/>
2nd hit:
*New Data From Opensignal Confirms T-Mobile's 5G Leadership*
<https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fastest-5g-most-available-5g-130900775.html>
3rd hit:
*Who has the fastest 5G network in the US?*
<https://the-biggest.net/other/who-has-the-fastest-5g-network-in-the-us.html>
4th hit:
*T-Mobile has fastest 5G speeds with widest availability in the US*
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/07/12/t-mobile-has-fastest-5g-speeds-with-widest-availability-in-the-us>
5th hit:
*Which US wireless carrier has the fastest 5G service?*
<https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/us-fastest-5g-service>
6th hit:
*Which US 5G Network Is Fastest?*
<https://www.pcmag.com/opinions/which-us-5g-network-is-fastest-were-revving-up-to-find-out>
7th hit:
*New report names fastest 5G network in US - and it's not Verizon*
<https://www.tomsguide.com/news/new-report-names-fastest-5g-mobile-carrier-in-us-and-its-not-verizon>
9th hit:
*The best 5G plans in the US*
<https://www.androidauthority.com/best-5g-plans-1140124/>
Those are the facts, which, let's see Steve's excuses for why things are the
way they are.
--
Alan Baker, Alan Browne, Chris, Haemactylus, Joerg Lorenz, Jolly Roger,
Lewis, nospam, Rod Speed, Savageduck, Wade Garrett, Wolffan, Your Name,
et al. are always making excuses & blaming everyone else for Apple's flaws.
> According to the report, T-Mobile is able to give its customers the fastest
> 5G speeds and a 5G signal more often and in more places than anyone else.
> This is the third consecutive quarter that T-Mobile holds this title.
> https://www.tmonews.com/2021/07/opensignal-t-mobile-fastest-available-5g-network-country/
While Steve doesn't even appear to have a Verizon plan, he's always making
> 5G speeds and a 5G signal more often and in more places than anyone else.
> This is the third consecutive quarter that T-Mobile holds this title.
> https://www.tmonews.com/2021/07/opensignal-t-mobile-fastest-available-5g-network-country/
excuses for Verizon, much like the apologists are always making excuses for
Apple's flaws.
What's interesting is Steve often comes up with an _excuse_ why any fact
that goes against his illogically emotional shills for Verizon MVNO's.
Steve is no different from the apologists in that manner as he will deflect
and blame everyone but Verizon for T-Mobile's faults (just watch).
It's easy to predict, years in advance even, what apologists & Steve do.
An actual adult looks at _both_ sides of every logical argument.
Like I do.
For example, I just googled the following to see what it comes up with:
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=who+fastest+5G+cellular+usa>
Here are the results (which I provide because I'm _balanced_ in logic).
<https://i.postimg.cc/jjSbtZNP/fastest5g01.jpg>
1st hit:
*T-Mobile offers the fastest 5G in the US, but not always the best*
<https://www.androidauthority.com/opensignal-best-5g-test-t-mobile-verizon-att-1643236/>
2nd hit:
*New Data From Opensignal Confirms T-Mobile's 5G Leadership*
<https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fastest-5g-most-available-5g-130900775.html>
3rd hit:
*Who has the fastest 5G network in the US?*
<https://the-biggest.net/other/who-has-the-fastest-5g-network-in-the-us.html>
4th hit:
*T-Mobile has fastest 5G speeds with widest availability in the US*
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/07/12/t-mobile-has-fastest-5g-speeds-with-widest-availability-in-the-us>
5th hit:
*Which US wireless carrier has the fastest 5G service?*
<https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/us-fastest-5g-service>
6th hit:
*Which US 5G Network Is Fastest?*
<https://www.pcmag.com/opinions/which-us-5g-network-is-fastest-were-revving-up-to-find-out>
7th hit:
*New report names fastest 5G network in US - and it's not Verizon*
<https://www.tomsguide.com/news/new-report-names-fastest-5g-mobile-carrier-in-us-and-its-not-verizon>
9th hit:
*The best 5G plans in the US*
<https://www.androidauthority.com/best-5g-plans-1140124/>
Those are the facts, which, let's see Steve's excuses for why things are the
way they are.
--
Alan Baker, Alan Browne, Chris, Haemactylus, Joerg Lorenz, Jolly Roger,
Lewis, nospam, Rod Speed, Savageduck, Wade Garrett, Wolffan, Your Name,
et al. are always making excuses & blaming everyone else for Apple's flaws.
nospam
Jul 14, 2021, 5:38:42 PM7/14/21
to
JF Mezei
Jul 14, 2021, 6:30:18 PM7/14/21
to
On 2021-07-14 17:12, badgolferman wrote:
> For SMS:
>
> T-Mobile has maintained its title as the fastest and most available 5G
> network provider in the country.
Woopty doo. Of course when you allocate spectrum for a tech that is
> For SMS:
>
> T-Mobile has maintained its title as the fastest and most available 5G
> network provider in the country.
unused because so few have phones that make use of it, those few phones
that do use it will see it like a empty highway when you can go at max
speed all the time.
nospam
Jul 14, 2021, 6:35:19 PM7/14/21
to
In article <ZzJHI.45507$Vv6....@fx45.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> > T-Mobile has maintained its title as the fastest and most available 5G
> > network provider in the country.
>
>
> Woopty doo. Of course when you allocate spectrum for a tech that is
> unused because so few have phones that make use of it, those few phones
> that do use it will see it like a empty highway when you can go at max
> speed all the time.
where 'so few' is several hundred million.
> > T-Mobile has maintained its title as the fastest and most available 5G
> > network provider in the country.
>
>
> Woopty doo. Of course when you allocate spectrum for a tech that is
> unused because so few have phones that make use of it, those few phones
> that do use it will see it like a empty highway when you can go at max
> speed all the time.
sms
Jul 14, 2021, 7:17:01 PM7/14/21
to
Perhaps T-Mobile should spend some money on fixing their 4G LTE network,
and concentrate on giving their customers a signal at all in more
places. Especially since 5G phones won't even reach 50% of the installed
base in the U.S. until 2023.
Here's a speed test I just ran, see <https://imgur.com/a/rTXFSrJ>:
T-Mobile
--------
Down: 6.28 Mb/s, Up: 0.01 Mb/s, Ping: 42ms, Jitter: 84ms, Loss: 98.7%
Verizon
-------
Down: 113 Mb/s, Up: 17.0 Mb/s, Ping: 32ms, Jitter: 1.2ms, Loss: 0
The T-Mobile test was on Red Pocket with a Red Pocket T-Mobile SIM card.
The Verizon test was on Red Pocket with a Red Pocket Verizon SIM card.
Actually, I wouldn't care if the Verizon speed were only 25 Mb/s, I
doubt if I could tell the difference between 25Mb/s and 113 Mb/s for
most stuff. But The T-Mobile speed was very poor, especially the upload
speed.
As for 5G, my next phone will likely have it but I'm in no rush. The
next generation of 5G phones will be better. The iPhone 13 will have the
new Qualcomm X60 modem and the Android phones will have the 5G modem
integrated into the SOC (there are already many such Snapdragon 888
phones available), and both designs will show battery life improvements.
Look at
<https://www.pcmag.com/news/t-mobile-like-verizon-also-tells-users-to-turn-off-5g-to-save-on-battery>
which details T-Mobile and Verizon's advice to users to turn off 5G to
improve battery life:
"Despite T-Mobile’s marketing talking up 5G, the carrier’s support pages
for the Samsung Galaxy S20 and S21 have been pointing out the benefit of
deactivating the 5G technology on a smartphone. The support pages go as
far to say a user can “Toggle from 5G/LTE to 2G” as a battery
saving-tip. In other words, you should downgrade your phone’s
connectivity to cellular technology originally launched three decades ago."
Anyway, it's great that you're happy with T-Mobile 5G and that you don't
care about geographic coverage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
“Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want
their illusions destroyed.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche
----------------------------------------------------------------------
nospam
Jul 14, 2021, 8:41:12 PM7/14/21
to
In article <scnr9c$lbb$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
> Especially since 5G phones won't even reach 50% of the installed
> base in the U.S. until 2023.
who cares. t-mobile hasn't turned off 4g.
> Anyway, it's great that you're happy with T-Mobile 5G and that you don't
> care about geographic coverage.
straw man.
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps T-Mobile should spend some money on fixing their 4G LTE network,
> and concentrate on giving their customers a signal at all in more
> places.
they did do that.
> Perhaps T-Mobile should spend some money on fixing their 4G LTE network,
> and concentrate on giving their customers a signal at all in more
> places.
> Especially since 5G phones won't even reach 50% of the installed
> base in the U.S. until 2023.
> Anyway, it's great that you're happy with T-Mobile 5G and that you don't
> care about geographic coverage.
badgolferman
Jul 14, 2021, 8:49:12 PM7/14/21
to
coverage and will be far ahead of Verizon as people migrate to new phones.
You keep harping on Verizon 4G coverage being the best, but I’m telling you
T-Mobile 5G coverage is the best and will be for a long time. When you
finally get your new phone you will feel left bend by Verizon’s lack of 5G
coverage.
badgolferman
Jul 14, 2021, 8:50:50 PM7/14/21
to
sms
Jul 14, 2021, 8:58:45 PM7/14/21
to
On 7/14/2021 5:49 PM, badgolferman wrote:
<snip>
> You keep harping on Verizon 4G coverage being the best, but I’m telling you
> T-Mobile 5G coverage is the best and will be for a long time. When you
> finally get your new phone you will feel left bend by Verizon’s lack of 5G
> coverage.
What you fail to understand (actually I'm sure you do understand it) is
that what matters to users is coverage. Not 5G coverage, but total coverage.
Absolutely I keep harping on coverage because T-Mobile has done a very
poor job of 4G coverage, and they have poor speeds. That's why they keep
harping about their 5G speed. Since only a small percentage of users
even have 5G phones, that speed is immaterial, and it's only so high
because there are so few people using it.
It's a lot harder for AT&T and Verizon to add 5G to ever cell they
operate because they have so many more cells to upgrade than T-Mobile.
T-Mobile has shown only a small effort to fix their coverage problem
outside of urban areas.
Do you really think that there's anyone out there that prefers 500Mb/s
with poor coverage versus 100Mb/s with excellent coverage. It's unlikely.
<snip>
> You keep harping on Verizon 4G coverage being the best, but I’m telling you
> T-Mobile 5G coverage is the best and will be for a long time. When you
> finally get your new phone you will feel left bend by Verizon’s lack of 5G
> coverage.
that what matters to users is coverage. Not 5G coverage, but total coverage.
Absolutely I keep harping on coverage because T-Mobile has done a very
poor job of 4G coverage, and they have poor speeds. That's why they keep
harping about their 5G speed. Since only a small percentage of users
even have 5G phones, that speed is immaterial, and it's only so high
because there are so few people using it.
It's a lot harder for AT&T and Verizon to add 5G to ever cell they
operate because they have so many more cells to upgrade than T-Mobile.
T-Mobile has shown only a small effort to fix their coverage problem
outside of urban areas.
Do you really think that there's anyone out there that prefers 500Mb/s
with poor coverage versus 100Mb/s with excellent coverage. It's unlikely.
badgolferman
Jul 14, 2021, 9:14:27 PM7/14/21
to
committed to the new technology? It’s like continuing to make steel wheels
for cars when nearly every car has aluminum wheels. Steel wheels have their
place, but usually it’s in the trunk!
T-Mobile has the fastest AND widest coverage of 5G.
sms
Jul 14, 2021, 9:14:45 PM7/14/21
to
have it. It's rather amusing how some of the T-Mobile shills are so
intent on proclaiming how fast T-Mobile's 5G is, but they get very upset
whenever anyone points out T-Mobile's coverage issues.
And of course it's not even clear that T-Mobile is actually the fastest.
Read
<https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/at-t-t-mobile-verizon-each-win-fastest-5g-awards-huh>.
What matters more to most people is network quality. Verizon has won the
J.D. Power Wireless Network Quality Study for 13 years in a row. In the
most recent survey J.D. Power surveyed over 33,000 wireless users. See
<https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2021-us-wireless-network-quality-performance-studies-volume-1>.
T-Mobile ranked below AT&T and Verizon in every region in the country
and in the region where U.S. Cellular was present, T-Mobile also ranked
below U.S. Cellular.
nospam
Jul 14, 2021, 9:21:51 PM7/14/21
to
In article <sco0m4$1uq7$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, badgolferman
> > Anyway, it's great that you're happy with T-Mobile 5G and that you don't
> > care about geographic coverage.
>
>
> Fastest and most *available* coverage. They are building the next level of
> coverage and will be far ahead of Verizon as people migrate to new phones.
unless you go to that lone spot somewhere in yosemite.
> > care about geographic coverage.
>
>
> Fastest and most *available* coverage. They are building the next level of
> coverage and will be far ahead of Verizon as people migrate to new phones.
nospam
Jul 14, 2021, 9:21:53 PM7/14/21
to
In article <sco182$s60$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > You keep harping on Verizon 4G coverage being the best, but Iąm telling you
> Absolutely I keep harping on coverage because T-Mobile has done a very
> poor job of 4G coverage, and they have poor speeds.
bullshit.
<https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/t-mobile-ranks-first-4g-downlo
ad-speeds-but-at-t-leads-at-regional-level-opensignal>
T-Mobile unseated Verizon for first place in both the download and
upload speed experience categories. Opensignal reported download
speed experience of 23.6 Mbps for T-Mobile and 7.3 Mbps upload
speed experience, compared to 22.9 Mbps download speed for
Verizon and 6.9 Mbps upload.
...
Verizon won first place for 4G availability by a hair with a score of
94.8%, versus T-Mobile in second with a score of 94.2%.
...
T-Mobile and AT&T tied for lowest latency, with Opensignal recording
just under 53 milliseconds (ms) for both carriers. Verizon was next
with latency at 56.8 ms, followed by Sprint at 59.8 ms.
<https://www.tmonews.com/2019/01/t-mobile-fastest-4g-lte-speeds-u-s-20th-
straight-quarter-600mhz-2700-cities/>
Ookla says that T-Mobile had the fastest 4G LTE data speeds for the
fourth quarter of 2018, making that the 20th straight quarter that
T-Mo has had the speediest data speeds according to Ookla data.
For Q4 2018, T-Mobile posted an average 4G LTE download speed
of 33.4Mbps and an average 4G LTE upload speed of 12.1Mbps.
To compare, Verizon came in second with a download speed of
32.1 Mbps and an upload speed of 10.3Mbps, and AT&T finished
third with a download speed of 30.6Mbps and an upload speed of
8.2Mbps. Sprint rounded things out with a download speed of
27.7 Mbps and an upload speed of 3.5Mbps.
T-Mobile also dropped the news today that its 600MHz Extended
Range LTE coverage is now available in more than 2,700 cities and
towns in 43 U.S. states and Puerto Rico. Thatąs up from 1,500 cities
and towns in 37 stats and Puerto Rico from back in October.
<https://mashable.com/article/tmobile-rules-opensignal-report-2018>
T-Mobile has been crowned the top wireless network in the U.S.,
according to OpenSignal's "2018 State of Mobile Networks" report.
The "uncarrier" blew past Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint in five out of
six major metric tests, besting the competition on 4G download speed,
3G download speed, overall download speed, 3G latency, and 4G
availability. The only metric T-Mobile didn't win was 4G latency;
AT&T just beat it by a hair.
> That's why they keep
> harping about their 5G speed.
no, that's not why.
they used to harp about their 4g speed when that was new. that was a
long time ago.
5g is new, so they harp on that now.
> Since only a small percentage of users
> even have 5G phones, that speed is immaterial, and it's only so high
> because there are so few people using it.
bullshit.
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > You keep harping on Verizon 4G coverage being the best, but Iąm telling you
> > T-Mobile 5G coverage is the best and will be for a long time. When you
> > finally get your new phone you will feel left bend by Verizonąs lack of 5G
> > coverage.
>
> What you fail to understand (actually I'm sure you do understand it) is
> that what matters to users is coverage. Not 5G coverage, but total coverage.
t-mobile has that. see below.
>
> What you fail to understand (actually I'm sure you do understand it) is
> that what matters to users is coverage. Not 5G coverage, but total coverage.
> Absolutely I keep harping on coverage because T-Mobile has done a very
> poor job of 4G coverage, and they have poor speeds.
<https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/t-mobile-ranks-first-4g-downlo
ad-speeds-but-at-t-leads-at-regional-level-opensignal>
T-Mobile unseated Verizon for first place in both the download and
upload speed experience categories. Opensignal reported download
speed experience of 23.6 Mbps for T-Mobile and 7.3 Mbps upload
speed experience, compared to 22.9 Mbps download speed for
Verizon and 6.9 Mbps upload.
...
Verizon won first place for 4G availability by a hair with a score of
94.8%, versus T-Mobile in second with a score of 94.2%.
...
T-Mobile and AT&T tied for lowest latency, with Opensignal recording
just under 53 milliseconds (ms) for both carriers. Verizon was next
with latency at 56.8 ms, followed by Sprint at 59.8 ms.
<https://www.tmonews.com/2019/01/t-mobile-fastest-4g-lte-speeds-u-s-20th-
straight-quarter-600mhz-2700-cities/>
Ookla says that T-Mobile had the fastest 4G LTE data speeds for the
fourth quarter of 2018, making that the 20th straight quarter that
T-Mo has had the speediest data speeds according to Ookla data.
For Q4 2018, T-Mobile posted an average 4G LTE download speed
of 33.4Mbps and an average 4G LTE upload speed of 12.1Mbps.
To compare, Verizon came in second with a download speed of
32.1 Mbps and an upload speed of 10.3Mbps, and AT&T finished
third with a download speed of 30.6Mbps and an upload speed of
8.2Mbps. Sprint rounded things out with a download speed of
27.7 Mbps and an upload speed of 3.5Mbps.
T-Mobile also dropped the news today that its 600MHz Extended
Range LTE coverage is now available in more than 2,700 cities and
towns in 43 U.S. states and Puerto Rico. Thatąs up from 1,500 cities
and towns in 37 stats and Puerto Rico from back in October.
<https://mashable.com/article/tmobile-rules-opensignal-report-2018>
T-Mobile has been crowned the top wireless network in the U.S.,
according to OpenSignal's "2018 State of Mobile Networks" report.
The "uncarrier" blew past Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint in five out of
six major metric tests, besting the competition on 4G download speed,
3G download speed, overall download speed, 3G latency, and 4G
availability. The only metric T-Mobile didn't win was 4G latency;
AT&T just beat it by a hair.
> That's why they keep
> harping about their 5G speed.
they used to harp about their 4g speed when that was new. that was a
long time ago.
5g is new, so they harp on that now.
> Since only a small percentage of users
> even have 5G phones, that speed is immaterial, and it's only so high
> because there are so few people using it.
nospam
Jul 14, 2021, 9:21:54 PM7/14/21
to
In article <sco263$128$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
> It's rather amusing how some of the T-Mobile shills are so
> intent on proclaiming how fast T-Mobile's 5G is, but they get very upset
> whenever anyone points out T-Mobile's coverage issues.
that's some mighty projection, and you're not one to be calling anyone
a shill.
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> T-Mobile has maintained its title as the fastest and most available 5G
> >> network provider in the country.
> >
> >
> > Woopty doo. Of course when you allocate spectrum for a tech that is
> > unused because so few have phones that make use of it, those few phones
> > that do use it will see it like a empty highway when you can go at max
> > speed all the time.
>
> Yes, that's true. The few 5G users should enjoy their speeds while they
> have it.
it's good and getting better as deployment continues.
> >> T-Mobile has maintained its title as the fastest and most available 5G
> >> network provider in the country.
> >
> >
> > Woopty doo. Of course when you allocate spectrum for a tech that is
> > unused because so few have phones that make use of it, those few phones
> > that do use it will see it like a empty highway when you can go at max
> > speed all the time.
>
> Yes, that's true. The few 5G users should enjoy their speeds while they
> have it.
> It's rather amusing how some of the T-Mobile shills are so
> intent on proclaiming how fast T-Mobile's 5G is, but they get very upset
> whenever anyone points out T-Mobile's coverage issues.
a shill.
paul
Jul 15, 2021, 4:29:39 AM7/15/21
to
badgolferman wrote on 14.07.2021 20:49
> You keep harping on Verizon 4G coverage being the best, but I▌ telling you
> coverage.
Hi badgolferman,
You're one of the few adults on this ng so the conversation can be nuanced.
What is rather telling to adults is how Steve calls _us_ shills (you and me,
badgolferman) simply because we posted our real-world speeds on T-Mobile.
*Steve _hates_ that we truthfully compare our experiences on T-Mobile*
Why?
I don't know why.
Why does Steve _hate_ that we truthfully compared our real-world speeds?
All we did, badgolferman, seriously... all we did was post our speeds.
Why is simply posting the speeds we get, to Steve, being "shills?"
For example, here are random 4G/5G speeds, taken from my very own balcony,
which you know to be a fact based on another thread, sampled in those very
same Santa Cruz Mountains which, according to Steve, are nearly devoid of
T-Mobile 4G or 5G coverage.
<https://i.postimg.cc/pdXF4Mtz/speedtest03.jpg>
I don't use the word "liar" lightly, but Steve is a brazen liar.
a. He doesn't even pay for a bona fide Verizon plan for heavens sake
b. Then he lies about the Verizon coverage on the plan he doesn't even have
What Steve _hates_ is we say the coverage for all three major carriers is
about the same, which, to him, being realistic, is calling us the "shills".
--
Steve lied to us about his plan where Steve ignores price & yet he, himself,
doesn't even pay for a bona fide Verizon plan even as he shills for them.
> You keep harping on Verizon 4G coverage being the best, but I▌ telling you
> T-Mobile 5G coverage is the best and will be for a long time. When you
> finally get your new phone you will feel left bend by Verizon┬ lack of 5G
> coverage.
Hi badgolferman,
You're one of the few adults on this ng so the conversation can be nuanced.
What is rather telling to adults is how Steve calls _us_ shills (you and me,
badgolferman) simply because we posted our real-world speeds on T-Mobile.
*Steve _hates_ that we truthfully compare our experiences on T-Mobile*
Why?
I don't know why.
Why does Steve _hate_ that we truthfully compared our real-world speeds?
All we did, badgolferman, seriously... all we did was post our speeds.
Why is simply posting the speeds we get, to Steve, being "shills?"
For example, here are random 4G/5G speeds, taken from my very own balcony,
which you know to be a fact based on another thread, sampled in those very
same Santa Cruz Mountains which, according to Steve, are nearly devoid of
T-Mobile 4G or 5G coverage.
<https://i.postimg.cc/pdXF4Mtz/speedtest03.jpg>
I don't use the word "liar" lightly, but Steve is a brazen liar.
a. He doesn't even pay for a bona fide Verizon plan for heavens sake
b. Then he lies about the Verizon coverage on the plan he doesn't even have
What Steve _hates_ is we say the coverage for all three major carriers is
about the same, which, to him, being realistic, is calling us the "shills".
--
Steve lied to us about his plan where Steve ignores price & yet he, himself,
doesn't even pay for a bona fide Verizon plan even as he shills for them.
paul
Jul 15, 2021, 4:30:09 AM7/15/21
to
sms wrote on 14.07.2021 21:14
Steve incessantly shills for Verizon but what bothers me is Steve calls
everyone else a shill simply for telling the truth about their experience.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Gtywwn8f/signal01.jpg>
Adults will notice that Steve calls anyone who is speaking facts a "shill",
even as _everyone_ realizes how Steve incessantly shills for Verizon.
And Steve doesn't even pay for a Verizon plan (he's using MVNO's instead!).
Steve has no basis for his claims that everyone _else_ is a shill.
I, for one, have used T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T in the very same Santa
Cruz Mountains Steve shills for Verizon on, and I have _always_ said that
they're about the same.
<https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg>
To Steve, for me to say "they're about the same", is, to him, a shill?
<https://i.postimg.cc/pdXF4Mtz/speedtest03.jpg>
> What matters more to most people is network quality.
Nobody cares about price?
Then why don't you, Steve, have a bona fide Verizon plan yourself?
> T-Mobile also ranked below U.S. Cellular.
JD Powers never called me up, where I've had Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile.
The coverage of all three is about the same.
I dropped Verizon when they upped my corporate contract after they replaced
a broken Kyocera; I dropped AT&T after they wouldn't re-instate a data lock
on a new smartphone after I retired; and I've been happy on T-Mobile ever
since.
For about $25/line I get about the same service as I had with AT&T &
Verizon, and I get unlocked phones, no contracts, unlimited calls, unlimited
text, and unlimited data (including any 5G data that I can get).
Telling the truth is not shilling, Steve.
You lied to us about _your_ Verizon MVNO plan, Steve.
You're the one who is the shill.
Don't call us shills just for telling the truth about our plans.
It's why you're a despicable person. Steve.
I, for one, say outright: Steve is a liar.
--
It's not so bad that Steve lied about his lack of a Verizon plan nor that
Steve incessantly shills for Verizon but that he calls everyone else a shill
simply for telling the truth about their experience.
> Yes, that's true. The few 5G users should enjoy their speeds while they
> have it. It's rather amusing how some of the T-Mobile shills are so
> intent on proclaiming how fast T-Mobile's 5G is, but they get very upset
> whenever anyone points out T-Mobile's coverage issues.
It's not so bad that Steve lied about his lack of a Verizon plan nor that
> have it. It's rather amusing how some of the T-Mobile shills are so
> intent on proclaiming how fast T-Mobile's 5G is, but they get very upset
> whenever anyone points out T-Mobile's coverage issues.
Steve incessantly shills for Verizon but what bothers me is Steve calls
everyone else a shill simply for telling the truth about their experience.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Gtywwn8f/signal01.jpg>
Adults will notice that Steve calls anyone who is speaking facts a "shill",
even as _everyone_ realizes how Steve incessantly shills for Verizon.
And Steve doesn't even pay for a Verizon plan (he's using MVNO's instead!).
Steve has no basis for his claims that everyone _else_ is a shill.
I, for one, have used T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T in the very same Santa
Cruz Mountains Steve shills for Verizon on, and I have _always_ said that
they're about the same.
<https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg>
To Steve, for me to say "they're about the same", is, to him, a shill?
<https://i.postimg.cc/pdXF4Mtz/speedtest03.jpg>
> What matters more to most people is network quality.
Then why don't you, Steve, have a bona fide Verizon plan yourself?
> T-Mobile also ranked below U.S. Cellular.
The coverage of all three is about the same.
I dropped Verizon when they upped my corporate contract after they replaced
a broken Kyocera; I dropped AT&T after they wouldn't re-instate a data lock
on a new smartphone after I retired; and I've been happy on T-Mobile ever
since.
For about $25/line I get about the same service as I had with AT&T &
Verizon, and I get unlocked phones, no contracts, unlimited calls, unlimited
text, and unlimited data (including any 5G data that I can get).
Telling the truth is not shilling, Steve.
You lied to us about _your_ Verizon MVNO plan, Steve.
You're the one who is the shill.
Don't call us shills just for telling the truth about our plans.
It's why you're a despicable person. Steve.
I, for one, say outright: Steve is a liar.
--
It's not so bad that Steve lied about his lack of a Verizon plan nor that
Steve incessantly shills for Verizon but that he calls everyone else a shill
simply for telling the truth about their experience.
paul
Jul 15, 2021, 4:30:46 AM7/15/21
to
sms wrote on 14.07.2021 19:16
Why does Steve _hate_ that badgolferman & I posted our real-world speeds?
I happen to live smack dab in the middle of those supposedly barren Santa
Cruz Mountains that Steve incessantly claims has no 4G/5G T-Mobile coverage.
<https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg>
Is Steve calling _me_ a liar or a shill simply for posting my results?
--
Steve lied to us about his Verizon plan (he doesn't even pay for one)
while Steve ignores that price is a key component on any purchase decision.
> Anyway, it's great that you're happy with T-Mobile 5G and that you don't
> care about geographic coverage.
*FACTS*
> care about geographic coverage.
Why does Steve _hate_ that badgolferman & I posted our real-world speeds?
I happen to live smack dab in the middle of those supposedly barren Santa
Cruz Mountains that Steve incessantly claims has no 4G/5G T-Mobile coverage.
<https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg>
Is Steve calling _me_ a liar or a shill simply for posting my results?
--
Steve lied to us about his Verizon plan (he doesn't even pay for one)
while Steve ignores that price is a key component on any purchase decision.
Joerg Lorenz
Jul 15, 2021, 4:48:39 AM7/15/21
to
Am 15.07.21 um 00:30 schrieb JF Mezei:
*ROTFLSTC*
paul
Jul 15, 2021, 4:53:09 AM7/15/21
to
sms wrote on 15.07.2021 02:58
> Absolutely I keep harping on coverage because T-Mobile has done a very
> poor job of 4G coverage, and they have poor speeds.
Ignoring that Steve lied to us about him even owning a real Verizon plan...
*FACTS*
Here are my real world rather randomly snapped T-Mobile 4G/5G speeds taken
from my own balcony smack dab in the middle of those very same Santa Cruz
Mountains Steve brazenly & repeatedly insists has almost no 4G coverage.
<https://i.postimg.cc/pdXF4Mtz/speedtest03.jpg>
Here is my signal strength, again, randomly taken, over time, on my balcony.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Gtywwn8f/signal01.jpg>
Why does Steve call us "shills" simply for posting the speeds we get on the
plans we actually pay for (unlike Steve, who lied about his "Verizon" plan)?
--
Steve lied about being on Verizon where Steve ignores price whenever he
shills for Verizon, where Verizon prices Steve claimed don't even exist.
> Absolutely I keep harping on coverage because T-Mobile has done a very
> poor job of 4G coverage, and they have poor speeds.
*FACTS*
Here are my real world rather randomly snapped T-Mobile 4G/5G speeds taken
from my own balcony smack dab in the middle of those very same Santa Cruz
Mountains Steve brazenly & repeatedly insists has almost no 4G coverage.
<https://i.postimg.cc/pdXF4Mtz/speedtest03.jpg>
Here is my signal strength, again, randomly taken, over time, on my balcony.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Gtywwn8f/signal01.jpg>
Why does Steve call us "shills" simply for posting the speeds we get on the
plans we actually pay for (unlike Steve, who lied about his "Verizon" plan)?
--
Steve lied about being on Verizon where Steve ignores price whenever he
shills for Verizon, where Verizon prices Steve claimed don't even exist.
sms
Jul 15, 2021, 5:07:46 AM7/15/21
to
On 7/14/2021 6:14 PM, badgolferman wrote:
<snip>
> 4G is being replaced by 5G. Why add additional old technology when you’ve
> committed to the new technology? It’s like continuing to make steel wheels
> for cars when nearly every car has aluminum wheels. Steel wheels have their
> place, but usually it’s in the trunk!
>
> T-Mobile has the fastest AND widest coverage of 5G.
There are good reasons for T-Mobile to address the issues with 4G LTE
(as well as with 5G).
They should fix their 4G LTE network because for at least two more years
the majority of users will not have 5G phone, and 100% of users won't
have 5G phones until at least 2025.
They should fix their 4G LTE network because they are rated last, of the
three nationwide carriers in coverage (see
<https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/t-mobile-coverage-map>).
They should fix their 4G LTE network because they are rated last, of the
three nationwide carriers in network quality (see
<https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2021-us-wireless-network-quality-performance-studies-volume-1>).
They should fix their 4G LTE network because they have expressed a
desire to attract more commercial and government customers for whom good
coverage is a prerequisite when choosing a provider.
They should address their 5G mmWave problem since they are rated last in
5G mmWave and last in 5G C-band. 5G mmWave will be vital in the IOT market.
<snip>
> 4G is being replaced by 5G. Why add additional old technology when you’ve
> committed to the new technology? It’s like continuing to make steel wheels
> for cars when nearly every car has aluminum wheels. Steel wheels have their
> place, but usually it’s in the trunk!
>
> T-Mobile has the fastest AND widest coverage of 5G.
(as well as with 5G).
They should fix their 4G LTE network because for at least two more years
the majority of users will not have 5G phone, and 100% of users won't
have 5G phones until at least 2025.
They should fix their 4G LTE network because they are rated last, of the
three nationwide carriers in coverage (see
<https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/t-mobile-coverage-map>).
They should fix their 4G LTE network because they are rated last, of the
three nationwide carriers in network quality (see
<https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2021-us-wireless-network-quality-performance-studies-volume-1>).
They should fix their 4G LTE network because they have expressed a
desire to attract more commercial and government customers for whom good
coverage is a prerequisite when choosing a provider.
They should address their 5G mmWave problem since they are rated last in
5G mmWave and last in 5G C-band. 5G mmWave will be vital in the IOT market.
RonTheGuy
Jul 15, 2021, 5:37:00 AM7/15/21
to
On Jul 15, 2021, sms wrote
(in article<news:scott1$5bc$1...@dont-email.me>):
If a tmo us postpaid customer wanted a 5G phone today, what's stopping them?
Ron, the humblest guy in town.
(in article<news:scott1$5bc$1...@dont-email.me>):
> They should fix their 4G LTE network because for at least two more years
> the majority of users will not have 5G phone
Why not?
> the majority of users will not have 5G phone
If a tmo us postpaid customer wanted a 5G phone today, what's stopping them?
Ron, the humblest guy in town.
nospam
Jul 15, 2021, 8:43:41 AM7/15/21
to
In article <scott1$5bc$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
> They should fix their 4G LTE network because they are rated last, of the
> three nationwide carriers in coverage
they were rated *first* (or tied), you mean.
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > T-Mobile has the fastest AND widest coverage of 5G.
>
> There are good reasons for T-Mobile to address the issues with 4G LTE
> (as well as with 5G).
>
> They should fix their 4G LTE network because for at least two more years
> the majority of users will not have 5G phone, and 100% of users won't
> have 5G phones until at least 2025.
there's nothing to fix.
> > T-Mobile has the fastest AND widest coverage of 5G.
>
> There are good reasons for T-Mobile to address the issues with 4G LTE
> (as well as with 5G).
>
> They should fix their 4G LTE network because for at least two more years
> the majority of users will not have 5G phone, and 100% of users won't
> have 5G phones until at least 2025.
> They should fix their 4G LTE network because they are rated last, of the
> three nationwide carriers in coverage
nospam
Jul 15, 2021, 8:43:43 AM7/15/21
to
In article <hfx09r8nsuk9$.d...@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
<r...@null.invalid> wrote:
> If a tmo us postpaid customer wanted a 5G phone today, what's stopping them?
nothing.
> If a tmo us postpaid customer wanted a 5G phone today, what's stopping them?
sms
Jul 15, 2021, 11:42:07 AM7/15/21
to
On 7/15/2021 2:37 AM, RonTheGuy wrote:
> On Jul 15, 2021, sms wrote
> (in article<news:scott1$5bc$1...@dont-email.me>):
>> They should fix their 4G LTE network because for at least two more years
>> the majority of users will not have 5G phone
>
> Why not?
>
> If a tmo us postpaid customer wanted a 5G phone today, what's stopping them?
The cost is one reason. Most people replace their phones every three to
> On Jul 15, 2021, sms wrote
> (in article<news:scott1$5bc$1...@dont-email.me>):
>> They should fix their 4G LTE network because for at least two more years
>> the majority of users will not have 5G phone
>
> Why not?
>
> If a tmo us postpaid customer wanted a 5G phone today, what's stopping them?
four years.
Another reason is that most people are delaying phone upgrades until the
second generation of 5G modems are out, which is just starting for
Android and which will happen for iPhones with the iPhone 13. T-Mobile's
advice on battery life probably didn't help either, see
<https://i.pcmag.com/imagery/articles/01fy2zuhBNHUZNvu426fylM-2.fit_lim.size_1920x.png>
But there's a deeper issue as well. While getting a 5G phone would
likely help with slow 4G speeds, it isn't going to solve coverage
issues. All the carriers include both 4G LTE and 5G on new cells (other
than perhaps on mmWave small cells). So a new 5G phone is not going to
fix coverage issues.
RonTheGuy
Jul 15, 2021, 11:53:58 AM7/15/21
to
On Jul 15, 2021, sms wrote
(in article<news:scpl0e$cfv$1...@dont-email.me>):
> The cost is one reason. Most people replace their phones every three to
> four years.
I know people who have gotten 5G Samsung phones for free from tmo recently.
> four years.
Tmo is practically giving away all the 5G iPhones too (at almost no cost).
How is being free or steeply discounted to almost free a handicap to 5G?
badgolferman
Jul 15, 2021, 12:14:10 PM7/15/21
to
points over and over again.
RonTheGuy
Jul 15, 2021, 12:47:29 PM7/15/21
to
On Jul 15, 2021, badgolferman wrote
(in article<news:scpmsa$bfg$1...@gioia.aioe.org>):
His talking points don't make any sense (as if someone gave them to him).
(in article<news:scpmsa$bfg$1...@gioia.aioe.org>):
>>> The cost is one reason. Most people replace their phones every three to
>>> four years.
>>
>> I know people who have gotten 5G Samsung phones for free from tmo recently.
>>
>> Tmo is practically giving away all the 5G iPhones too (at almost no cost).
>>
>> How is being free or steeply discounted to almost free a handicap to 5G?
>
>>> four years.
>>
>> I know people who have gotten 5G Samsung phones for free from tmo recently.
>>
>> Tmo is practically giving away all the 5G iPhones too (at almost no cost).
>>
>> How is being free or steeply discounted to almost free a handicap to 5G?
>
> Stop trying to reason with him. He will just repeat the same outdated
> points over and over again.
I had given him the benefit of the doubt but I guess you're right.
> points over and over again.
His talking points don't make any sense (as if someone gave them to him).
sms
Jul 15, 2021, 12:54:24 PM7/15/21
to
On 7/15/2021 8:54 AM, RonTheGuy wrote:
> On Jul 15, 2021, sms wrote
> (in article<news:scpl0e$cfv$1...@dont-email.me>):
>> The cost is one reason. Most people replace their phones every three to
>> four years.
>
> I know people who have gotten 5G Samsung phones for free from tmo recently.
Yes, there are mid-range 5G phones that T-Mobile is offering in exchange
> On Jul 15, 2021, sms wrote
> (in article<news:scpl0e$cfv$1...@dont-email.me>):
>> The cost is one reason. Most people replace their phones every three to
>> four years.
>
> I know people who have gotten 5G Samsung phones for free from tmo recently.
for a two year commitment. Not "free" put paid for.
> How is being free or steeply discounted to almost free a handicap to 5G?
to the carrier. 2) A lot of existing iPhone users are waiting for
certain features to come to the iPhone, several of which have been
predicted to be present on the iPhone 13. You can learn more about this
at the document I prepared that examines the features available on each
platform that users want, see <https://tinyurl.com/fzje7h9e>.
sms
Jul 15, 2021, 12:57:07 PM7/15/21
to
On 7/15/2021 9:47 AM, RonTheGuy wrote:
<snip>
> I had given him the benefit of the doubt but I guess you're right.
> His talking points don't make any sense (as if someone gave them to him).
LOL, the reason I always provide extensive references and citations is
explicitly because I want it to be made clear that the statements I make
are factual.
<snip>
> I had given him the benefit of the doubt but I guess you're right.
> His talking points don't make any sense (as if someone gave them to him).
explicitly because I want it to be made clear that the statements I make
are factual.
nospam
Jul 15, 2021, 2:47:48 PM7/15/21
to
In article <scpl0e$cfv$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
most phones, both android and iphone are financed and often sold at a
discount, as little as free (with contract).
if someone wanted a 5g phone, they could get one at any time simply by
renewing their existing contract and accepting the deal that's offered.
> Another reason is that most people are delaying phone upgrades until the
> second generation of 5G modems are out,
that's what's out *now*, and most people don't know nor care about what
generation chipset is in their phone.
> which is just starting for
> Android and which will happen for iPhones with the iPhone 13.
false.
the first gen 5g modems came out in 2019, where the phones overheated
within minutes. apple skipped the first gen because it was worthless.
<https://www.pcmag.com/news/in-las-vegas-att-pulls-back-the-curtain-slig
htly-on-its-5g-strategy>
On a hot Las Vegas morning, my two Galaxy S10 5G phones kept
overheating and dropping to 4G. This behavior is happening with all
of the millimeter-wave, first-generation, Qualcomm X50-based phones
when temperatures hit or exceed 85 degrees. We saw it with T-Mobile
in New York, with Verizon in Providence, and now with AT&T in Las
Vegas. It's happened on Samsung and LG phones, with Samsung,
Ericsson, and Nokia network hardware.
AT&T and T-Mobile both said they'll have phones with Qualcomm's
second-generation 5G modem, the X55, later this year. This persistent
overheating behavior just makes me more confident in recommending
that consumers wait to buy a 5G phone.
<https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the-reasons-not-to-buy-a-5g-phone-righ
t-now-11563467389>
One of the biggest findings of my multi-city 5G review tour: The
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G isnąt reliable in the summer‹unless, well,
you summer in Iceland.
When I ran tests, the phoneąs 5G often switched off due to
overheating, leaving me with a 4G connection. Cellular carriers
demo-ing or testing the phone have taken to cooling the devices
with ice packs and air conditioners.
The phone does this when the temperature reaches a certain threshold
to minimize energy use and optimize battery, a Samsung spokeswoman
said. łAs 5G technology and the ecosystem evolve, itąs only going to
get better,˛ she added.
the second gen 5g modems are what's available now, both iphone and
android.
the third gen 5g modems will be next year.
> T-Mobile's
> advice on battery life probably didn't help either,
it's not just t-mobile with that issue.
>
> But there's a deeper issue as well. While getting a 5G phone would
> likely help with slow 4G speeds, it isn't going to solve coverage
> issues. All the carriers include both 4G LTE and 5G on new cells (other
> than perhaps on mmWave small cells). So a new 5G phone is not going to
> fix coverage issues.
there aren't any such issues to be fixed.
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> They should fix their 4G LTE network because for at least two more years
> >> the majority of users will not have 5G phone
> >
> > Why not?
> >
> > If a tmo us postpaid customer wanted a 5G phone today, what's stopping them?
>
> The cost is one reason. Most people replace their phones every three to
> four years.
cost is not an issue.
> >> They should fix their 4G LTE network because for at least two more years
> >> the majority of users will not have 5G phone
> >
> > Why not?
> >
> > If a tmo us postpaid customer wanted a 5G phone today, what's stopping them?
>
> The cost is one reason. Most people replace their phones every three to
> four years.
most phones, both android and iphone are financed and often sold at a
discount, as little as free (with contract).
if someone wanted a 5g phone, they could get one at any time simply by
renewing their existing contract and accepting the deal that's offered.
> Another reason is that most people are delaying phone upgrades until the
> second generation of 5G modems are out,
generation chipset is in their phone.
> which is just starting for
> Android and which will happen for iPhones with the iPhone 13.
the first gen 5g modems came out in 2019, where the phones overheated
within minutes. apple skipped the first gen because it was worthless.
<https://www.pcmag.com/news/in-las-vegas-att-pulls-back-the-curtain-slig
htly-on-its-5g-strategy>
On a hot Las Vegas morning, my two Galaxy S10 5G phones kept
overheating and dropping to 4G. This behavior is happening with all
of the millimeter-wave, first-generation, Qualcomm X50-based phones
when temperatures hit or exceed 85 degrees. We saw it with T-Mobile
in New York, with Verizon in Providence, and now with AT&T in Las
Vegas. It's happened on Samsung and LG phones, with Samsung,
Ericsson, and Nokia network hardware.
AT&T and T-Mobile both said they'll have phones with Qualcomm's
second-generation 5G modem, the X55, later this year. This persistent
overheating behavior just makes me more confident in recommending
that consumers wait to buy a 5G phone.
<https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the-reasons-not-to-buy-a-5g-phone-righ
t-now-11563467389>
One of the biggest findings of my multi-city 5G review tour: The
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G isnąt reliable in the summer‹unless, well,
you summer in Iceland.
When I ran tests, the phoneąs 5G often switched off due to
overheating, leaving me with a 4G connection. Cellular carriers
demo-ing or testing the phone have taken to cooling the devices
with ice packs and air conditioners.
The phone does this when the temperature reaches a certain threshold
to minimize energy use and optimize battery, a Samsung spokeswoman
said. łAs 5G technology and the ecosystem evolve, itąs only going to
get better,˛ she added.
the second gen 5g modems are what's available now, both iphone and
android.
the third gen 5g modems will be next year.
> T-Mobile's
> advice on battery life probably didn't help either,
>
> But there's a deeper issue as well. While getting a 5G phone would
> likely help with slow 4G speeds, it isn't going to solve coverage
> issues. All the carriers include both 4G LTE and 5G on new cells (other
> than perhaps on mmWave small cells). So a new 5G phone is not going to
> fix coverage issues.
nospam
Jul 15, 2021, 2:47:49 PM7/15/21
to
In article <scppd2$3fb$2...@dont-email.me>, sms
> explicitly because I want it to be made clear that the statements I make
> are factual.
they aren't, and are easily refuted.
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > I had given him the benefit of the doubt but I guess you're right.
> > His talking points don't make any sense (as if someone gave them to him).
>
> LOL, the reason I always provide extensive references and citations is
your 'extensive references' are bogus, or at best, highly misleading.
>
> > I had given him the benefit of the doubt but I guess you're right.
> > His talking points don't make any sense (as if someone gave them to him).
>
> LOL, the reason I always provide extensive references and citations is
> explicitly because I want it to be made clear that the statements I make
> are factual.
nospam
Jul 15, 2021, 2:47:50 PM7/15/21
to
In article <scpp7v$3fb$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
they continue paying their usual monthly fee as they always have, maybe
a few dollars more.
> > How is being free or steeply discounted to almost free a handicap to 5G?
>
> Multiple reasons. 1) A subsidized phone requires a two-year commitment
> to the carrier.
not an issue. it's just a continuation of what they were paying all
along.
> 2) A lot of existing iPhone users are waiting for
> certain features to come to the iPhone, several of which have been
> predicted to be present on the iPhone 13.
bullshit.
iphone sales show that to be utterly false.
the iphone 12 is the best selling iphone to date. nobody is holding off
on 'certain features', which may not even happen.
> You can learn more about this
> at the document I prepared..
almost all of which is false.
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> The cost is one reason. Most people replace their phones every three to
> >> four years.
> >
> > I know people who have gotten 5G Samsung phones for free from tmo recently.
>
> Yes, there are mid-range 5G phones that T-Mobile is offering in exchange
> for a two year commitment. Not "free" put paid for.
free means no up front cost, which is what matters to most people.
> >> The cost is one reason. Most people replace their phones every three to
> >> four years.
> >
> > I know people who have gotten 5G Samsung phones for free from tmo recently.
>
> Yes, there are mid-range 5G phones that T-Mobile is offering in exchange
> for a two year commitment. Not "free" put paid for.
they continue paying their usual monthly fee as they always have, maybe
a few dollars more.
> > How is being free or steeply discounted to almost free a handicap to 5G?
>
> Multiple reasons. 1) A subsidized phone requires a two-year commitment
> to the carrier.
along.
> 2) A lot of existing iPhone users are waiting for
> certain features to come to the iPhone, several of which have been
> predicted to be present on the iPhone 13.
iphone sales show that to be utterly false.
the iphone 12 is the best selling iphone to date. nobody is holding off
on 'certain features', which may not even happen.
> You can learn more about this
almost all of which is false.
badgolferman
Jul 15, 2021, 3:04:36 PM7/15/21
to
sms wrote:
>On 7/15/2021 9:47 AM, RonTheGuy wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>I had given him the benefit of the doubt but I guess you're right.
>>His talking points don't make any sense (as if someone gave them to
>>him).
>
>LOL, the reason I always provide extensive references and citations
>is explicitly because I want it to be made clear that the statements
>I make are factual.
>
You are losing more credibility with every message. Even those of us
>On 7/15/2021 9:47 AM, RonTheGuy wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>I had given him the benefit of the doubt but I guess you're right.
>>His talking points don't make any sense (as if someone gave them to
>>him).
>
>LOL, the reason I always provide extensive references and citations
>is explicitly because I want it to be made clear that the statements
>I make are factual.
>
who have no issue with you are accepting that fact.
nospam
Jul 15, 2021, 3:10:33 PM7/15/21
to
In article <xn0n0f2xc...@nntp.aioe.org>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> sms wrote:
> >LOL, the reason I always provide extensive references and citations
> >is explicitly because I want it to be made clear that the statements
> >I make are factual.
> >
>
> You are losing more credibility with every message. Even those of us
> who have no issue with you are accepting that fact.
he never had any credibility to lose. he's always been a poseur, going
back many years.
<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> sms wrote:
> >LOL, the reason I always provide extensive references and citations
> >is explicitly because I want it to be made clear that the statements
> >I make are factual.
> >
>
> You are losing more credibility with every message. Even those of us
> who have no issue with you are accepting that fact.
back many years.
sms
Jul 15, 2021, 4:09:52 PM7/15/21
to
should provide your own that contradict them. Attacking the messenger
doesn't help your credibility which is rapidly declining to the level of
nospam, Arlen/Paul, etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
“One believes things because one has been conditioned to believe them.”
― Aldous Huxley
------------------------------------------------------------------------
nospam
Jul 15, 2021, 4:42:18 PM7/15/21
to
In article <scq4mf$l8p$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
numerous links in this and just about every other thread. you ignore
them every single time because you're a troll.
> Attacking the messenger
> doesn't help your credibility which is rapidly declining to the level of
> nospam, Arlen/Paul, etc.
that's an attack, so according to *you*, you're not helping your own
credibility.
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >>> I had given him the benefit of the doubt but I guess you're right.
> >>> His talking points don't make any sense (as if someone gave them to
> >>> him).
> >>
> >> LOL, the reason I always provide extensive references and citations
> >> is explicitly because I want it to be made clear that the statements
> >> I make are factual.
> >>
> >
> > You are losing more credibility with every message. Even those of us
> > who have no issue with you are accepting that fact.
>
> If you dispute the accuracy of the references that I cite then you
> should provide your own that contradict them.
your 'references' are bogus and have been extensively refuted with
> >>> I had given him the benefit of the doubt but I guess you're right.
> >>> His talking points don't make any sense (as if someone gave them to
> >>> him).
> >>
> >> LOL, the reason I always provide extensive references and citations
> >> is explicitly because I want it to be made clear that the statements
> >> I make are factual.
> >>
> >
> > You are losing more credibility with every message. Even those of us
> > who have no issue with you are accepting that fact.
>
> If you dispute the accuracy of the references that I cite then you
> should provide your own that contradict them.
numerous links in this and just about every other thread. you ignore
them every single time because you're a troll.
> Attacking the messenger
> doesn't help your credibility which is rapidly declining to the level of
> nospam, Arlen/Paul, etc.
credibility.
badgolferman
Jul 15, 2021, 5:17:13 PM7/15/21
to
sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 7/15/2021 12:04 PM, badgolferman wrote:
>> sms wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/15/2021 9:47 AM, RonTheGuy wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> I had given him the benefit of the doubt but I guess you're right.
>>>> His talking points don't make any sense (as if someone gave them to
>>>> him).
>>>
>>> LOL, the reason I always provide extensive references and citations
>>> is explicitly because I want it to be made clear that the statements
>>> I make are factual.
>>>
>>
>> You are losing more credibility with every message. Even those of us
>> who have no issue with you are accepting that fact.
>
> If you dispute the accuracy of the references that I cite then you
> should provide your own that contradict them. Attacking the messenger
> doesn't help your credibility which is rapidly declining to the level of
> nospam, Arlen/Paul, etc.
I already did, but you keep making up ridiculous scenarios which only apply
> On 7/15/2021 12:04 PM, badgolferman wrote:
>> sms wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/15/2021 9:47 AM, RonTheGuy wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> I had given him the benefit of the doubt but I guess you're right.
>>>> His talking points don't make any sense (as if someone gave them to
>>>> him).
>>>
>>> LOL, the reason I always provide extensive references and citations
>>> is explicitly because I want it to be made clear that the statements
>>> I make are factual.
>>>
>>
>> You are losing more credibility with every message. Even those of us
>> who have no issue with you are accepting that fact.
>
> If you dispute the accuracy of the references that I cite then you
> should provide your own that contradict them. Attacking the messenger
> doesn't help your credibility which is rapidly declining to the level of
> nospam, Arlen/Paul, etc.
to a very small amount of people. It is you who cannot be educated.
sms
Jul 15, 2021, 9:02:09 PM7/15/21
to
On 7/15/2021 2:17 PM, badgolferman wrote:
T-Mobile is rated last, of the three nationwide carriers in coverage
(see <https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/t-mobile-coverage-map>).
T-Mobile is rated last of the three nationwide carriers in network
quality (see
<https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2021-us-wireless-network-quality-performance-studies-volume-1>).
You keep harping on 5G because it's all you have. You're what's known in
<https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2021-us-wireless-network-quality-performance-studies-volume-1>).
the Peter Principle as a "side issue specialist." Substituting a zealous
concern for something that you can do, instead of concentrating on what
really needs to be done, or "look after the mole hills and the mountains
will look after themselves."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The Great Tragedy of Science—The Slaying of a Beautiful Hypothesis by
an Ugly Fact.” ― Thomas Henry Huxley
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JF Mezei
Jul 16, 2021, 2:40:42 AM7/16/21
to
On 2021-07-15 05:07, sms wrote:
> They should fix their 4G LTE network because for at least two more years
> the majority of users will not have 5G phone, and 100% of users won't
> have 5G phones until at least 2025.
They are rather busy swallowing the Sprint corpse. his is a lot of work
> They should fix their 4G LTE network because for at least two more years
> the majority of users will not have 5G phone, and 100% of users won't
> have 5G phones until at least 2025.
because they get to choose which antenna to keep in a region based on a
lot of parameters( elevation, cost of monthly rent etc). But of the
Sprint stuff they keep, they need to convert to be t-Mo compatible.
For 5G it is a bit simpler because neither Sprint nor T-Mo antennas had
any, so t_mo gets to install 5G radios from scratch at any toiwer it has
decided to keep (whether originally Sprint or T-Mo).
But for 4G, where they keep a Sprint anetnna, there are decision on
whether to keep the old Sprint radios or change them to T-mo
models/brands, whether there is a need to retune antenna (re-orient
each) to ensure no dead spots betwene that spint toiwer and the nearby
T-Mo towers.
The other issue is one of ground links. The tower service an areas may
have double the spectrum to serve both T-mo and SPrint customers, but
itr also needs double the groudn link capacity to the network
switches/routers.
nospam
Jul 16, 2021, 8:28:38 AM7/16/21
to
In article <JR9II.3229$yN6....@fx13.iad>, JF Mezei
> For 5G it is a bit simpler because neither Sprint nor T-Mo antennas had
> any, so t_mo gets to install 5G radios from scratch at any toiwer it has
> decided to keep (whether originally Sprint or T-Mo).
they had antennas.
> But for 4G, where they keep a Sprint anetnna, there are decision on
> whether to keep the old Sprint radios or change them to T-mo
> models/brands, whether there is a need to retune antenna (re-orient
> each) to ensure no dead spots betwene that spint toiwer and the nearby
> T-Mo towers.
nope.
> The other issue is one of ground links. The tower service an areas may
> have double the spectrum to serve both T-mo and SPrint customers, but
> itr also needs double the groudn link capacity to the network
> switches/routers.
nope.
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> They are rather busy swallowing the Sprint corpse. his is a lot of work
> because they get to choose which antenna to keep in a region based on a
> lot of parameters( elevation, cost of monthly rent etc). But of the
> Sprint stuff they keep, they need to convert to be t-Mo compatible.
nonsense.
> They are rather busy swallowing the Sprint corpse. his is a lot of work
> because they get to choose which antenna to keep in a region based on a
> lot of parameters( elevation, cost of monthly rent etc). But of the
> Sprint stuff they keep, they need to convert to be t-Mo compatible.
> For 5G it is a bit simpler because neither Sprint nor T-Mo antennas had
> any, so t_mo gets to install 5G radios from scratch at any toiwer it has
> decided to keep (whether originally Sprint or T-Mo).
> But for 4G, where they keep a Sprint anetnna, there are decision on
> whether to keep the old Sprint radios or change them to T-mo
> models/brands, whether there is a need to retune antenna (re-orient
> each) to ensure no dead spots betwene that spint toiwer and the nearby
> T-Mo towers.
> The other issue is one of ground links. The tower service an areas may
> have double the spectrum to serve both T-mo and SPrint customers, but
> itr also needs double the groudn link capacity to the network
> switches/routers.
sms
Jul 16, 2021, 11:25:22 AM7/16/21
to
roaming coverage post-merger. I checked the map for one national park we
go to often (Yosemite). Sprint used to roam, originally for voice, SMS,
and data, and later just for voice and SMS, onto Verizon (nee Golden
State Cellular), but now those areas are just "no coverage." This is
what it looked like pre-merger: <https://imgur.com/a/GlAL9AQ>. This is
what it looks like post-merger: <https://imgur.com/a/O8WmLrs>. But I'm
sure that someone will proclaim that coverage doesn't matter, what
matters is how fast T-Mobile's 5G network is in the places that T-Mobile
actually has service!
In the days of PRLs (Preferred Roaming Lists) some Sprint users were
modifying them to force roaming on Verizon, both for better coverage and
faster data speeds, see <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1bQdO3-FE0>.
There was also an Android app called "Roam Control" that Sprint users
could install (on some phones) that turned off the 1900 MHz radio. Since
in most places Sprint was at 1900 MHz, and Verizon was at 800 MHz, this
effectively forced Verizon roaming (it obviously didn't work in places
where Verizon was at 1900 MHz, like Florida), see
<https://sites.google.com/site/roamcontrol/home>.
Then Sprint began closing accounts of subscribers that roamed too much
<https://www.reddit.com/r/Sprint/comments/2csoip/my_contract_has_been_terminated_for_excessive/>.
Roaming costs carriers a lot of money when there's no need for
reciprocal roaming on the carrier they're roaming on.
Wow, a post with extensive cites and references. What a concept!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Critical thinking is the most powerful weapon we have” ― Kiyoshi Taylor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
nospam
Jul 16, 2021, 1:51:28 PM7/16/21
to
In article <scs8d1$65c$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
former sprint customers just got an upgrade. their existing coverage
just got better.
> I checked the map
maps are not accurate and don't reflect real world use.
>
> In the days of PRLs (Preferred Roaming Lists) some Sprint users were
> modifying them to force roaming on Verizon, both for better coverage and
> faster data speeds,
very, very few, and it wasn't needed since sprint roamed on verizon
without needing to do anything extra.
>
> Then Sprint began closing accounts of subscribers that roamed too much
extremely rarely and only for abuse.
> Wow, a post with extensive cites and references. What a concept!
highly cherry picked to carry a false narrative.
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> It's also rather ironic that former Sprint customers have lost so much
> roaming coverage post-merger.
bullshit. bull fucking shit.
> It's also rather ironic that former Sprint customers have lost so much
> roaming coverage post-merger.
former sprint customers just got an upgrade. their existing coverage
just got better.
> I checked the map
maps are not accurate and don't reflect real world use.
>
> In the days of PRLs (Preferred Roaming Lists) some Sprint users were
> modifying them to force roaming on Verizon, both for better coverage and
> faster data speeds,
without needing to do anything extra.
>
> Then Sprint began closing accounts of subscribers that roamed too much
> Wow, a post with extensive cites and references. What a concept!
JF Mezei
Jul 16, 2021, 4:34:25 PM7/16/21
to
On 2021-07-16 11:25, sms wrote:
> It's also rather ironic that former Sprint customers have lost so much
> roaming coverage post-merger.
> It's also rather ironic that former Sprint customers have lost so much
> roaming coverage post-merger.
> In the days of PRLs (Preferred Roaming Lists) some Sprint users were
> modifying them to force roaming on Verizon,
If you enable manual selection of network (AT&T disables that on their
> modifying them to force roaming on Verizon,
SIM cards BTW and you can't list available networks where you are
(unless changes since 2019), you can try to "login" to any network and
see if your home network will accept the roaming request.
Normally, the SIM has a list of accepted roaming partners with a
priority assigned to them. So in first day of merger, T-Mo would have
asked Sprint to update all the SIMs to have T-Mo as prefered roaming
partnet (highest priority) and leave the rest alone. (this is very
fast and easy). Then things get integrated more and more to find T-Mo as
a "home" network even if the SIM belongs to Sprint etc).
At that point, you could go to manually select a network and choose
Verizon and if Verizon's request to Sprint was approved by Sprint, then
Verizon woudl handle your connection and bill Sprint even if T-Mo was
higher priority.
But as integration moves forward, such requests start to be handled by
T-Mo and and T_mo may decide to no longer authrize roaming on Verizon
(for one thing, it isn't clear if the contract between Sprint and
Verizon would carry over when T-Mo buys Sprint, or whether there is a
clause that voids the conttract within X days of Sprint being purchased
by another carrier).
You can request roaming on any network. The visited network may refuse
right away (As Rogers does for Wind/Freedom when you are in an area that
Freedom claims is covered - something which Rogers keeps track of). Or
it can pass on the request to the home netowrk where the home network
approves or rejects the roaming request.
The details of such roaming contracts generally don't become public
unless they go to court. In Canada, roaming tariffs are published, but
they act as a basis for roaming contracts wwhich can have different
agreed upon caluses (for instance, offer lower roaming rates if the
carrier customer agrees to not offer prices that are lower than the host
carrier's own retail prices (no compete clause). In canada, bell and
Telus have refused to disclose to the Competition Bureau their private
deal (since it obviously involves price fixing).
RonTheGuy
Jul 16, 2021, 4:43:14 PM7/16/21
to
On Jul 15, 2021, sms wrote
(in article<news:scpp7v$3fb$1...@dont-email.me>):
>> How is being free or steeply discounted to almost free a handicap to 5G?
>
> Multiple reasons. 1) A subsidized phone requires a two-year commitment
> to the carrier.
What happens if they get that free tmo 5G phone & then they decide to change
>
> Multiple reasons. 1) A subsidized phone requires a two-year commitment
> to the carrier.
to Verizon or AT&T after just a year because they get a better deal there?
RonTheGuy
Jul 16, 2021, 4:53:31 PM7/16/21
to
On Jul 15, 2021, sms wrote
(in article<news:scqlqg$d7n$1...@dont-email.me>):
> You keep harping on 5G because it's all you have.
Didn't he say tmo is the fastest data whether it's 4G or 5G in some of the
news reports?
Didn't he also say he has unlimited 4G data with no change in his plan cost?
And didn't he say he got a free iPhone on his new line for his mom (for only
$10 a month for that new line as I recall)? And didn't he say he got a
subsidized iPhone for his current lines, also at no change in service costs?
Or didn't he say any of that?
JF Mezei
Jul 16, 2021, 4:54:34 PM7/16/21
to
On 2021-07-16 16:43, RonTheGuy wrote:
>> Multiple reasons. 1) A subsidized phone requires a two-year commitment
>> to the carrier.
>
> What happens if they get that free tmo 5G phone & then they decide to change
> to Verizon or AT&T after just a year because they get a better deal there?
The contract you sign for that free phone in exchaneg for 2 year of
>> Multiple reasons. 1) A subsidized phone requires a two-year commitment
>> to the carrier.
>
> What happens if they get that free tmo 5G phone & then they decide to change
> to Verizon or AT&T after just a year because they get a better deal there?
service has steep penalties if you cancel contract before it has ended.
(In Canada, the CRTC (and in Québec the Office de la Protection des
Consommateurs) has limited the maximum penalty for canceling contract to
the unpaid portion of the phone.
So if you get a $600 phone for free on a 24 month contract, it is deemed
to be paid in monthly $25 installements deducted from your monthly
cellular service, so every month, your cancellation penalty is recuded
by $25.
Hint: there are no free phones. Any type of subsidy you get for your
phone ends up being paid through higher monthly rates.
nospam
Jul 16, 2021, 4:56:57 PM7/16/21
to
In article <j3mII.1963$3T....@fx26.iad>, JF Mezei
not only is it *not* fast nor easy, but it's actually impossible.
a replacement sim is required.
rest of your garbage snipped.
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Normally, the SIM has a list of accepted roaming partners with a
> priority assigned to them. So in first day of merger, T-Mo would have
> asked Sprint to update all the SIMs to have T-Mo as prefered roaming
> partnet (highest priority) and leave the rest alone. (this is very
> fast and easy). Then things get integrated more and more to find T-Mo as
> a "home" network even if the SIM belongs to Sprint etc).
nope.
> Normally, the SIM has a list of accepted roaming partners with a
> priority assigned to them. So in first day of merger, T-Mo would have
> asked Sprint to update all the SIMs to have T-Mo as prefered roaming
> partnet (highest priority) and leave the rest alone. (this is very
> fast and easy). Then things get integrated more and more to find T-Mo as
> a "home" network even if the SIM belongs to Sprint etc).
not only is it *not* fast nor easy, but it's actually impossible.
a replacement sim is required.
rest of your garbage snipped.
nospam
Jul 16, 2021, 4:56:58 PM7/16/21
to
In article <cmmII.9088$_fgb...@fx01.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> The contract you sign for that free phone in exchaneg for 2 year of
> service has steep penalties if you cancel contract before it has ended.
the only penalties are to pay off the phone in full.
>
> The contract you sign for that free phone in exchaneg for 2 year of
> service has steep penalties if you cancel contract before it has ended.
nospam
Jul 16, 2021, 4:56:58 PM7/16/21
to
In article <1mmploc2...@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
phone.
if someone found a better deal elsewhere, it would need to be quite a
bit better because of the lump sum payment needed to be paid for
t-mobile to unlock it.
complicating things even further, it cannot be activated on verizon
after having been activated on a different carrier, even after it's
unlocked. verizon must be the first activation.
what can be done is to activate a verizon sim in another (verizon)
phone and then swap it, which isn't something most people will be able
to do unless they happen to have a spare verizon phone. most people do
not, and that's assuming they know that it's even possible because
verizon will lie and say the phone is not compatible with their
network.
<r...@null.invalid> wrote:
>
> What happens if they get that free tmo 5G phone & then they decide to change
> to Verizon or AT&T after just a year because they get a better deal there?
it's locked to t-mobile until it's fully paid off, as is any financed
>
> What happens if they get that free tmo 5G phone & then they decide to change
> to Verizon or AT&T after just a year because they get a better deal there?
phone.
if someone found a better deal elsewhere, it would need to be quite a
bit better because of the lump sum payment needed to be paid for
t-mobile to unlock it.
complicating things even further, it cannot be activated on verizon
after having been activated on a different carrier, even after it's
unlocked. verizon must be the first activation.
what can be done is to activate a verizon sim in another (verizon)
phone and then swap it, which isn't something most people will be able
to do unless they happen to have a spare verizon phone. most people do
not, and that's assuming they know that it's even possible because
verizon will lie and say the phone is not compatible with their
network.
JF Mezei
Jul 16, 2021, 5:19:55 PM7/16/21
to
On 2021-07-16 16:56, nospam wrote:
> nope.
>
> not only is it *not* fast nor easy, but it's actually impossible.
>
> a replacement sim is required.
The update of roaming partners is done OTA to SIMs of your customer
> nope.
>
> not only is it *not* fast nor easy, but it's actually impossible.
>
> a replacement sim is required.
base. It is done very commonly in the GSM family of protocols. You are
from old CDMA heritage where you don't have such experiences.
Hint: every new carrier develops international roaming deals all the
time and updates SIMs with the new partners as they become available.
Within a day or two of announcing a roaming deal, all customers have
access to it without changing SIMs. This happened in Canada a few
times, when Fido (then standalone) stuck a deal for roaming on Rogers
outside its territory, (so when Rogers bought Fido, the ability to roam
was already there, but expanded to to all of the territory as Rogers
progressively shut down Fido towers, expect those converted to Rogers
service).
Similarly, Rogers, Bell and Telus struck agreements to allow "incdental"
roaming on each other, and this was done without an SIM changes because
it is an OTA update. (though with much back-end logic to prevent a
Rogers custoemr from roaming on Bell/Telus in an area where Rogers
pretends to have service).
When Fido was youg in late 1990s, it kept announcing new international
roaming deals and those were transparently adeed to SIMs without needing
to change sim Cards, so this capability dates back from early days of GSM.
The G in GSM is for Global and it was designed exactly for that purpose.
And before you sauf GSM is dead: the latest tariffs filed by Canadian
carriers on roaminG/MVNO specify that the customer (another carrier)
must be a GSM carrier member of GSM association, with GSM carrrier code
and GSM SIM cards etc. %G, LTE,VoLTE, HSPA/UMTS, GPRS are all GSM
protocols.
nospam
Jul 16, 2021, 5:26:12 PM7/16/21
to
In article <_JmII.6914$_m....@fx05.iad>, JF Mezei
as i said, a replacement sim is required.
> You are
> from old CDMA heritage where you don't have such experiences.
nope. i'm from the heritage that knows how it works.
this is a concept very foreign to you, who babbles about all sorts of
crazy shit.
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> > nope.
> >
> > not only is it *not* fast nor easy, but it's actually impossible.
> >
> > a replacement sim is required.
>
>
> The update of roaming partners is done OTA to SIMs of your customer
> base. It is done very commonly in the GSM family of protocols.
*not* with sprint.
>
> > nope.
> >
> > not only is it *not* fast nor easy, but it's actually impossible.
> >
> > a replacement sim is required.
>
>
> The update of roaming partners is done OTA to SIMs of your customer
> base. It is done very commonly in the GSM family of protocols.
as i said, a replacement sim is required.
> You are
> from old CDMA heritage where you don't have such experiences.
this is a concept very foreign to you, who babbles about all sorts of
crazy shit.
Ken Hart
Jul 16, 2021, 5:41:56 PM7/16/21
to
On 7/16/2021 12:56 PM, nospam wrote:
>> The contract you sign for that free phone in exchaneg for 2 year of
>> service has steep penalties if you cancel contract before it has ended.
>
> the only penalties are to pay off the phone in full.
And even then, only that which is remaining of the 1/24th of the price.
>> The contract you sign for that free phone in exchaneg for 2 year of
>> service has steep penalties if you cancel contract before it has ended.
>
> the only penalties are to pay off the phone in full.
Whatever penalty JFM is talking about isn't how they do things in the US.
The US doesn't even do contracts for most plans so how can they penalize?
--
Ken Hart
kwh...@frontier.com
nospam
Jul 16, 2021, 6:02:40 PM7/16/21
to
In article <scsuen$p26$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Ken Hart
> Whatever penalty JFM is talking about isn't how they do things in the US.
he lives in a fantasy world where all sorts of unusual things happen.
> The US doesn't even do contracts for most plans so how can they penalize?
they do for the 'free' phones.
<kwh...@frontier.com> wrote:
> >> The contract you sign for that free phone in exchaneg for 2 year of
> >> service has steep penalties if you cancel contract before it has ended.
> >
> > the only penalties are to pay off the phone in full.
>
> And even then, only that which is remaining of the 1/24th of the price.
that's what pay off in full means.
> >> The contract you sign for that free phone in exchaneg for 2 year of
> >> service has steep penalties if you cancel contract before it has ended.
> >
> > the only penalties are to pay off the phone in full.
>
> And even then, only that which is remaining of the 1/24th of the price.
> Whatever penalty JFM is talking about isn't how they do things in the US.
> The US doesn't even do contracts for most plans so how can they penalize?
sms
Jul 16, 2021, 6:11:56 PM7/16/21
to
On 7/16/2021 1:54 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
<snip>
> Hint: there are no free phones. Any type of subsidy you get for your
> phone ends up being paid through higher monthly rates.
Well in the U.S. you pay those monthly rates whether you take the
subsidized phone or not.
If you plan to stay with your carrier anyway then you may as well take
advantage of the subsidy because you're not going to get a lower rate by
not taking advantage of it.
If you're planning to move to a lower cost carrier-owned prepaid service
like AT&T's Cricket, T-Mobile's Metro, Verizon's Visible, or if you're
planning to move to an MVNO, then you probably don't want to buy a
subsidized phone and get put back under contract.
<snip>
> Hint: there are no free phones. Any type of subsidy you get for your
> phone ends up being paid through higher monthly rates.
subsidized phone or not.
If you plan to stay with your carrier anyway then you may as well take
advantage of the subsidy because you're not going to get a lower rate by
not taking advantage of it.
If you're planning to move to a lower cost carrier-owned prepaid service
like AT&T's Cricket, T-Mobile's Metro, Verizon's Visible, or if you're
planning to move to an MVNO, then you probably don't want to buy a
subsidized phone and get put back under contract.
nospam
Jul 16, 2021, 6:13:05 PM7/16/21
to
In article <sct07b$s7f$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
> If you plan to stay with your carrier anyway then you may as well take
> advantage of the subsidy because you're not going to get a lower rate by
> not taking advantage of it.
only if you can't afford buying a phone upfront, for less.
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Well in the U.S. you pay those monthly rates whether you take the
> subsidized phone or not.
they're separate.
> Well in the U.S. you pay those monthly rates whether you take the
> subsidized phone or not.
> If you plan to stay with your carrier anyway then you may as well take
> advantage of the subsidy because you're not going to get a lower rate by
> not taking advantage of it.
sms
Jul 16, 2021, 6:16:15 PM7/16/21
to
the carrier or pay off the phone balance when you leave. The balance is
forgiven over time, as long as you stay. That's why it makes sense to
take the discounted phone whenever you're eligible, as long as you don't
plan on leaving.
nospam
Jul 16, 2021, 6:29:51 PM7/16/21
to
In article <sct0fe$vjh$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> That's why it makes sense to
> take the discounted phone whenever you're eligible, as long as you don't
> plan on leaving.
unless it can be obtained for less elsewhere
> That's why it makes sense to
> take the discounted phone whenever you're eligible, as long as you don't
> plan on leaving.
badgolferman
Jul 16, 2021, 6:55:14 PM7/16/21
to
badgolferman
Jul 16, 2021, 6:55:15 PM7/16/21
to
RonTheGuy <r...@null.invalid> wrote:
> On Jul 15, 2021, sms wrote
> (in article<news:scqlqg$d7n$1...@dont-email.me>):
>> You keep harping on 5G because it's all you have.
>
> Didn't he say tmo is the fastest data whether it's 4G or 5G in some of the
> news reports?
I didn’t say that.
> On Jul 15, 2021, sms wrote
> (in article<news:scqlqg$d7n$1...@dont-email.me>):
>> You keep harping on 5G because it's all you have.
>
> Didn't he say tmo is the fastest data whether it's 4G or 5G in some of the
> news reports?
> Didn't he also say he has unlimited 4G data with no change in his plan cost?
> And didn't he say he got a free iPhone on his new line for his mom (for only
> $10 a month for that new line as I recall)?
was $15 a month.
And didn't he say he got a
> subsidized iPhone for his current lines, also at no change in service costs?
devices to my account. One was paid off immediately and the other is being
paid off monthly. I got $200 discount for trade ins.
> Or didn't he say any of that?
payment on one iPhone 12.
JF Mezei
Jul 16, 2021, 8:11:26 PM7/16/21
to
On 2021-07-16 17:26, nospam wrote:
>> The update of roaming partners is done OTA to SIMs of your customer
>> base. It is done very commonly in the GSM family of protocols.
>
> *not* with sprint.
>
> as i said, a replacement sim is required.
Sprint customers have been able to roam on T-Mobile for some time
>> The update of roaming partners is done OTA to SIMs of your customer
>> base. It is done very commonly in the GSM family of protocols.
>
> *not* with sprint.
>
> as i said, a replacement sim is required.
already, no change of sim required.
The upcoming chaneg of SIM requirement is totally different. Sprint will
be spun off as an MVNO starting with 0 customers. So T-Mobile needs to
move all its acquired customers to T-Mo SIM cards because at one point,
anyone with a Spirnt SIM card will be considered to be a Sprint MVNO
customers. Howeber These now T-Mobile customers will have no busines
relationship/account with that new Sprint MVNO so when they try to
connect, Sprint will block them.
JF Mezei
Jul 16, 2021, 8:18:36 PM7/16/21
to
On 2021-07-16 18:55, badgolferman wrote:
> The phone will remain locked unless you pay it off.
Locking of phones is useless and in canada, one of my few wins at CRTC
> The phone will remain locked unless you pay it off.
(helped by government) was ensuring all customers got unlocked phones.
1- you have unpaid plhone with carrier A
2- you move to carrier B midway through contract, get a new more modern
phone from B. You don't care that the old phone from A won't work or has
no resale value. A still ends up losing money on you.
This is why there is a contract that binds you to pay off at least the
remaining balance of pphone (or a punitive penalty where there is no
consumer protection) to ensure carrier doesn't lose money. The punitive
penalty is there to also reduce churn because it dissuades peoploe
leaving one carrier to go onto a better plan to another carrier.
That is why Canada limited contract caneclaltion to only the remaining
unpaid value of handset and ensured you have access to an unlocked phone
to make it easier to switch carriers so you can take advantage of
special offers from other carriers.
The uncompetitive carrier reesponse: if you can't penalize you for
leaving us, we will penalize you for joining us. (so this is equivalent
to collusion whenere all carriuers agree to "nuisance" fees as they call
them to dissuade switching of carriers.
nospam
Jul 16, 2021, 8:25:46 PM7/16/21
to
In article <NepII.14692$ilwe....@fx35.iad>, JF Mezei
in a location and it isn't guaranteed since the bands are different.
iphones have both bands but other phones might not.
> The upcoming chaneg of SIM requirement is totally different. Sprint will
> be spun off as an MVNO starting with 0 customers.
no. stop making up shit.
sprint mvnos will migrate to t-mobile.
> So T-Mobile needs to
> move all its acquired customers to T-Mo SIM cards because at one point,
> anyone with a Spirnt SIM card will be considered to be a Sprint MVNO
> customers.
that doesn't even make sense.
> Howeber These now T-Mobile customers will have no busines
> relationship/account with that new Sprint MVNO so when they try to
> connect, Sprint will block them.
sprint is now a part of t-mobile. sprint mvnos are now t-mobile mvnos,
and in the process of migration.
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> >> The update of roaming partners is done OTA to SIMs of your customer
> >> base. It is done very commonly in the GSM family of protocols.
> >
> > *not* with sprint.
> >
> > as i said, a replacement sim is required.
>
> Sprint customers have been able to roam on T-Mobile for some time
> already, no change of sim required.
roaming is separate, was possible if there wasn't native sprint service
>
> >> The update of roaming partners is done OTA to SIMs of your customer
> >> base. It is done very commonly in the GSM family of protocols.
> >
> > *not* with sprint.
> >
> > as i said, a replacement sim is required.
>
> Sprint customers have been able to roam on T-Mobile for some time
> already, no change of sim required.
in a location and it isn't guaranteed since the bands are different.
iphones have both bands but other phones might not.
> The upcoming chaneg of SIM requirement is totally different. Sprint will
> be spun off as an MVNO starting with 0 customers.
sprint mvnos will migrate to t-mobile.
> So T-Mobile needs to
> move all its acquired customers to T-Mo SIM cards because at one point,
> anyone with a Spirnt SIM card will be considered to be a Sprint MVNO
> customers.
> Howeber These now T-Mobile customers will have no busines
> relationship/account with that new Sprint MVNO so when they try to
> connect, Sprint will block them.
and in the process of migration.
sms
Jul 16, 2021, 10:15:33 PM7/16/21
to
On 7/16/2021 5:18 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2021-07-16 18:55, badgolferman wrote:
>
>> The phone will remain locked unless you pay it off.
>
>
> Locking of phones is useless and in canada, one of my few wins at CRTC
> (helped by government) was ensuring all customers got unlocked phones.
>
> 1- you have unpaid plhone with carrier A
> 2- you move to carrier B midway through contract, get a new more modern
> phone from B. You don't care that the old phone from A won't work or has
> no resale value. A still ends up losing money on you.
>
> This is why there is a contract that binds you to pay off at least the
> remaining balance of pphone (or a punitive penalty where there is no
> consumer protection) to ensure carrier doesn't lose money. The punitive
> penalty is there to also reduce churn because it dissuades peoploe
> leaving one carrier to go onto a better plan to another carrier.
Same in the U.S.. They avoid calling it a contract. In the past there
> On 2021-07-16 18:55, badgolferman wrote:
>
>> The phone will remain locked unless you pay it off.
>
>
> Locking of phones is useless and in canada, one of my few wins at CRTC
> (helped by government) was ensuring all customers got unlocked phones.
>
> 1- you have unpaid plhone with carrier A
> 2- you move to carrier B midway through contract, get a new more modern
> phone from B. You don't care that the old phone from A won't work or has
> no resale value. A still ends up losing money on you.
>
> This is why there is a contract that binds you to pay off at least the
> remaining balance of pphone (or a punitive penalty where there is no
> consumer protection) to ensure carrier doesn't lose money. The punitive
> penalty is there to also reduce churn because it dissuades peoploe
> leaving one carrier to go onto a better plan to another carrier.
were hefty cancellation penalties for leaving before you were out of
contract, but the phone was yours at no additional cost. Now the
contract you sign is that you agree to pay off the phone if you leave
before the term is up.
The way they do the "contract" is to give you a credit on your bill
equal to the payment. Your monthly fee for service is the same whether
you take that credit or not.
The only hassle is that the carrier has the right to not unlock your
phone before it is paid off, even though you're obligated to pay it off
if you leave. This varies by carrier. Verizon unlocks even phones that
are not paid off after 60 days. Even phones purchased from Verizon at
full price are locked for 60 days, see
<https://www.verizon.com/support/device-locking-faqs/>:
• Device purchased at full retail price or on a device payment agreement
– Locked for 60 days from purchase
• Device purchased on a device payment agreement and paid off prior to
60 day requirement - Locked for 60 days from purchase
Verizon is unique. For several years they were forbidden to lock their
phones at all, then the FCC agreed to allow them to lock them for 60
days, see
<https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/26/18759602/verizon-60-day-phone-lock-fcc-approves>
for the explanation.
nospam
Jul 16, 2021, 10:29:20 PM7/16/21
to
In article <scteg3$7ir$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
however, it's still financed, therefore it will fail a financial
eligibility check (fec) which will prevent it from being used on
another carrier until it's fully paid.
>
> Verizon is unique.
true. they have the most user-hostile policies.
> For several years they were forbidden to lock their
> phones at all, then the FCC agreed to allow them to lock them for 60
> days,
only because verizon paid off ajit ž, who used to be a lawyer for
verizon, to look the other way.
it's still a violation of their agreement for spectrum, which has *not*
been overturned.
however, it's still financed, therefore it will fail a financial
eligibility check (fec) which will prevent it from being used on
another carrier until it's fully paid.
>
> Verizon is unique.
true. they have the most user-hostile policies.
> For several years they were forbidden to lock their
> phones at all, then the FCC agreed to allow them to lock them for 60
> days,
verizon, to look the other way.
it's still a violation of their agreement for spectrum, which has *not*
been overturned.
Ken Hart
Jul 17, 2021, 4:04:35 AM7/17/21
to
On 7/16/2021 6:11 PM, sms wrote:
> If you're planning to move to a lower cost carrier-owned prepaid service
> like AT&T's Cricket, T-Mobile's Metro, Verizon's Visible, or if you're
> planning to move to an MVNO, then you probably don't want to buy a
> subsidized phone and get put back under contract.
What kind of person puts everyone in his family on those crackpot plans?
> If you're planning to move to a lower cost carrier-owned prepaid service
> like AT&T's Cricket, T-Mobile's Metro, Verizon's Visible, or if you're
> planning to move to an MVNO, then you probably don't want to buy a
> subsidized phone and get put back under contract.
--
Ken Hart
kwh...@frontier.com
Ken Hart
Jul 17, 2021, 4:11:48 AM7/17/21
to
On 7/16/2021 10:15 PM, sms wrote:
> Same in the U.S.. They avoid calling it a contract. In the past there
> were hefty cancellation penalties for leaving before you were out of
> contract, but the phone was yours at no additional cost. Now the
> contract you sign is that you agree to pay off the phone if you leave
> before the term is up.
I've been on the same cellular provider for years.
> Same in the U.S.. They avoid calling it a contract. In the past there
> were hefty cancellation penalties for leaving before you were out of
> contract, but the phone was yours at no additional cost. Now the
> contract you sign is that you agree to pay off the phone if you leave
> before the term is up.
If they made the contract (that I don't have) 10 years, it wouldn't matter.
What is wrong with your crackpot plans that you need to keep changing them?
--
Ken Hart
kwh...@frontier.com
badgolferman
Jul 17, 2021, 6:52:33 AM7/17/21
to
and play these games with convoluted plans from no name carriers.
sms
Jul 17, 2021, 11:07:25 AM7/17/21
to
Verizon's network, and hotspot data is unlimited (but only one device
can be tethered at a time).
AT&T's Cricket is $33/month/user (for the four user unlimited,
unthrottled plan) with a 15GB per line hotspot limit, and includes
Mexico and Canada roaming.
T-Mobile's Metro is $35 per user on the four line plan with only 5GB of
hotspot data, plus the same coverage issues that T-Mobile postpaid has.
For MVNOs, the best one is Total Wireless (Verizon). $95/month for four
users, unlimited data (first 100GB at high speed).
A negative, for all of these, is that the cellular Apple Watch is not
supported, though Visible said that they will soon support it.
Fortunately, you can now set up a cellular Apple Watch on an AT&T MVNO,
with its own phone number and unlimited voice, text and data, see
<https://www.truphone.com/us/about/newsroom/how-to-add-a-mobile-plan-to-your-apple-watch/>
and it's only $10 per month. You get a separate phone number for the
Apple Watch, which could be good or bad depending on your needs.
We've been on Total Wireless for about four years. It's magnitudes
better than the T-Mobile service we had previously. The coverage is
vastly superior. The LTE data rates are more than an order of magnitude
higher than T-Mobile (cue badgolferman's schtick "but T-Mobile has fast
5G").
nospam
Jul 17, 2021, 11:32:14 AM7/17/21
to
In article <scurnc$5mg$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
other mvnos will be supporting the apple watch as well as other
wearables. there's nothing special about visible, and in fact, it's not
that good overall.
apple watch support requires a lot behind the scenes that has to
happen, such as mapping the watch to the host account.
> Fortunately, you can now set up a cellular Apple Watch on an AT&T MVNO,
> with its own phone number and unlimited voice, text and data, see
>
> <https://www.truphone.com/us/about/newsroom/how-to-add-a-mobile-plan-to-your-a
> pple-watch/>
> and it's only $10 per month. You get a separate phone number for the
> Apple Watch, which could be good or bad depending on your needs.
an apple watch *must* have its own phone number and what you're
neglecting to mention is that an iphone is required.
you're very full of disinformation, although some people might choose a
different and less polite word.
> We've been on Total Wireless for about four years. It's magnitudes
> better than the T-Mobile service we had previously. The coverage is
> vastly superior.
bullshit. t-mobile coverage where you live is excellent and has been
for years.
> The LTE data rates are more than an order of magnitude
> higher than T-Mobile
not according to numerous surveys, it isn't.
here's one such report:
<https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/t-mobile-ranks-first-4g-downlo
ad-speeds-but-at-t-leads-at-regional-level-opensignal>
T-Mobile narrowly snagged the top spot for fastest national 4G LTE
download speeds since March, but network upgrades drove significant
gains for AT&T, which led in regional speed breakdowns, according to
Opensignal零 latest report.
...
T-Mobile unseated Verizon for first place in both the download and
upload speed experience categories. Opensignal reported download
speed experience of 23.6 Mbps for T-Mobile and 7.3 Mbps upload
speed experience, compared to 22.9 Mbps download speed for Verizon
and 6.9 Mbps upload.
and as for that 'vastly superior' coverage, verizon is actually only
*slightly* better than t-mobile, which is in *second* *place*
Verizon won first place for 4G availability by a hair with a score of
94.8%, versus T-Mobile in second with a score of 94.2%.
> (cue badgolferman's schtick "but T-Mobile has fast
> 5G").
it does, and more importantly, it's just about everywhere, whereas
verizon mmw is almost nowhere.
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> A negative, for all of these, is that the cellular Apple Watch is not
> supported, though Visible said that they will soon support it.
a very weak attempt at shilling for verizon, again.
> A negative, for all of these, is that the cellular Apple Watch is not
> supported, though Visible said that they will soon support it.
other mvnos will be supporting the apple watch as well as other
wearables. there's nothing special about visible, and in fact, it's not
that good overall.
apple watch support requires a lot behind the scenes that has to
happen, such as mapping the watch to the host account.
> Fortunately, you can now set up a cellular Apple Watch on an AT&T MVNO,
> with its own phone number and unlimited voice, text and data, see
>
> <https://www.truphone.com/us/about/newsroom/how-to-add-a-mobile-plan-to-your-a
> pple-watch/>
> and it's only $10 per month. You get a separate phone number for the
> Apple Watch, which could be good or bad depending on your needs.
neglecting to mention is that an iphone is required.
you're very full of disinformation, although some people might choose a
different and less polite word.
> We've been on Total Wireless for about four years. It's magnitudes
> better than the T-Mobile service we had previously. The coverage is
> vastly superior.
for years.
> The LTE data rates are more than an order of magnitude
> higher than T-Mobile
here's one such report:
<https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/t-mobile-ranks-first-4g-downlo
ad-speeds-but-at-t-leads-at-regional-level-opensignal>
T-Mobile narrowly snagged the top spot for fastest national 4G LTE
download speeds since March, but network upgrades drove significant
gains for AT&T, which led in regional speed breakdowns, according to
Opensignal零 latest report.
...
T-Mobile unseated Verizon for first place in both the download and
upload speed experience categories. Opensignal reported download
speed experience of 23.6 Mbps for T-Mobile and 7.3 Mbps upload
speed experience, compared to 22.9 Mbps download speed for Verizon
and 6.9 Mbps upload.
and as for that 'vastly superior' coverage, verizon is actually only
*slightly* better than t-mobile, which is in *second* *place*
Verizon won first place for 4G availability by a hair with a score of
94.8%, versus T-Mobile in second with a score of 94.2%.
> (cue badgolferman's schtick "but T-Mobile has fast
> 5G").
verizon mmw is almost nowhere.
RonTheGuy
Jul 17, 2021, 12:30:55 PM7/17/21
to
On Jul 17, 2021, nospam wrote
(in article<news:170720211132126265%nos...@nospam.invalid>):
Why not use Verizon like everyone else on Verizon would?
(in article<news:170720211132126265%nos...@nospam.invalid>):
> other mvnos will be supporting the apple watch as well as other
> wearables. there's nothing special about visible, and in fact, it's not
> that good overall.
Why all this talk about a Verizon MVNO?
> wearables. there's nothing special about visible, and in fact, it's not
> that good overall.
Why not use Verizon like everyone else on Verizon would?
nospam
Jul 17, 2021, 12:49:19 PM7/17/21
to
In article <tfysta5t8uaq$.d...@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
he shills verizon but doesn't actually use it.
<r...@null.invalid> wrote:
> > other mvnos will be supporting the apple watch as well as other
> > wearables. there's nothing special about visible, and in fact, it's not
> > that good overall.
>
> Why all this talk about a Verizon MVNO?
> Why not use Verizon like everyone else on Verizon would?
you're catching on.
> > other mvnos will be supporting the apple watch as well as other
> > wearables. there's nothing special about visible, and in fact, it's not
> > that good overall.
>
> Why all this talk about a Verizon MVNO?
> Why not use Verizon like everyone else on Verizon would?
he shills verizon but doesn't actually use it.
badgolferman
Jul 17, 2021, 1:18:41 PM7/17/21
to
> ...
> T-Mobile unseated Verizon for first place in both the download and
> upload speed experience categories. Opensignal reported download
> speed experience of 23.6 Mbps for T-Mobile and 7.3 Mbps upload
> speed experience, compared to 22.9 Mbps download speed for Verizon
> and 6.9 Mbps upload.
>
> and as for that 'vastly superior' coverage, verizon is actually only
> *slightly* better than t-mobile, which is in *second* *place*
> Verizon won first place for 4G availability by a hair with a score of
> 94.8%, versus T-Mobile in second with a score of 94.2%.
>
>> (cue badgolferman's schtick "but T-Mobile has fast
>> 5G").
>
> it does, and more importantly, it's just about everywhere, whereas
> verizon mmw is almost nowhere.
>
I just think sms has to justify his choices so he selectively chooses
> T-Mobile unseated Verizon for first place in both the download and
> upload speed experience categories. Opensignal reported download
> speed experience of 23.6 Mbps for T-Mobile and 7.3 Mbps upload
> speed experience, compared to 22.9 Mbps download speed for Verizon
> and 6.9 Mbps upload.
>
> and as for that 'vastly superior' coverage, verizon is actually only
> *slightly* better than t-mobile, which is in *second* *place*
> Verizon won first place for 4G availability by a hair with a score of
> 94.8%, versus T-Mobile in second with a score of 94.2%.
>
>> (cue badgolferman's schtick "but T-Mobile has fast
>> 5G").
>
> it does, and more importantly, it's just about everywhere, whereas
> verizon mmw is almost nowhere.
>
information which supports it. It’s clear most of these “testing” sites fix
their information depending on who pays them more. I tend to believe
anecdotal evidence more because word of mouth is often times more accurate.
When you need a new mechanic how do you choose one, by recommendation of
your neighbor or by some Top Ten website?
nospam
Jul 17, 2021, 1:32:06 PM7/17/21
to
In article <scv3dc$c4r$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, badgolferman
the problem is many people are fooled by his claims.
> Itąs clear most of these łtesting˛ sites fix
> I tend to believe
> anecdotal evidence more because word of mouth is often times more accurate.
> When you need a new mechanic how do you choose one, by recommendation of
> your neighbor or by some Top Ten website?
valid point. the review sites are often filled with bogus posts,
although it's not that hard to figure out which ones are legit,
however, someone's recommendation isn't necessarily better.
<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I just think sms has to justify his choices so he selectively chooses
> information which supports it.
it's his style of trolling and he's been at it for a couple of decades.
>
> I just think sms has to justify his choices so he selectively chooses
> information which supports it.
the problem is many people are fooled by his claims.
> Itąs clear most of these łtesting˛ sites fix
> their information depending on who pays them more.
some do, not all.
> I tend to believe
> anecdotal evidence more because word of mouth is often times more accurate.
> When you need a new mechanic how do you choose one, by recommendation of
> your neighbor or by some Top Ten website?
although it's not that hard to figure out which ones are legit,
however, someone's recommendation isn't necessarily better.
RJH
Jul 17, 2021, 1:46:19 PM7/17/21
to
On 17 Jul 2021 at 9:32:04 AM, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> someone's recommendation isn't necessarily better.
It doesn't hurt when the recommendation comes from someone you trust who
> someone's recommendation isn't necessarily better.
knows what he's talking about.
--
Cheers, Rob
nospam
Jul 17, 2021, 1:53:40 PM7/17/21
to
In article <scv516$11rg$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, RJH <patch...@gmx.com>
either.
their recommendation could be very good, but personality differences
make it difficult, if not impossible to work with that person, or maybe
the fees are too high or the location is not convenient.
there is no 'best' that works for everyone.
wrote:
> > someone's recommendation isn't necessarily better.
>
> It doesn't hurt when the recommendation comes from someone you trust who
> knows what he's talking about.
the problem is finding that, but even if you do, it isn't a guarantee
> > someone's recommendation isn't necessarily better.
>
> It doesn't hurt when the recommendation comes from someone you trust who
> knows what he's talking about.
either.
their recommendation could be very good, but personality differences
make it difficult, if not impossible to work with that person, or maybe
the fees are too high or the location is not convenient.
there is no 'best' that works for everyone.
JF Mezei
Jul 17, 2021, 6:30:28 PM7/17/21
to
On 2021-07-16 20:25, nospam wrote:
> no. stop making up shit.
>
> sprint mvnos will migrate to t-mobile.
As part of the agreement to allow the merger, T-Mobile promised the
> no. stop making up shit.
>
> sprint mvnos will migrate to t-mobile.
FTC/FCC that the Sprint brand would survive as an MVNO to provide
"competition".
To achieve this, the Sprint brand and MNC must be freeded of any users
so it can be spun off and the newly formed Sprint can then issue its own
SIMs using that MNC and sign MVNO contract with T-Mobile.
The original Sprint MVNOs would already have their own SIMs, so to them
it is only a matter of sending the binary SMS to update the SIM card
config to add T-Mobile as home network. Eventually, as the last tower
emitting the Sprint MNC code is shut down, all these MVOS can send an
SMS to remove the Sprint MNC from the list of "home" networks. (sicne
therte won't be a Sprint physical network anymore).
But former Sprint customers have Sprint SIM cards with the Sprint MNC.
T-Mobiole is not selling these custoemrs when it is spinning off the
Sprint brand so it needs them to change SIM to have a t-mo SIM card, at
which point the Sprint brand and MNC will be unused and can be spun off
into a new "empty" MVNO that can build customer base from scratch.
> sprint is now a part of t-mobile. sprint mvnos are now t-mobile mvnos,
> and in the process of migration.
to T-Mo, Sprint will be spun off as an MVNO without any facilities.
(though the former billing and CRM system might be sold with it). So
T-Mobile has to move all its customers off of anything related to Sprint
before doing so.
nospam
Jul 17, 2021, 6:46:07 PM7/17/21
to
In article <7SIII.13911$sI4....@fx40.iad>, JF Mezei
> To achieve this, the Sprint brand and MNC must be freeded of any users
> so it can be spun off and the newly formed Sprint can then issue its own
> SIMs using that MNC and sign MVNO contract with T-Mobile.
no.
> The original Sprint MVNOs would already have their own SIMs,
no they didn't.
they were normal sprint sims, or more accurately, a uicc, which were
tied to the phone.
rest of your fantasyland crazytalk snipped.
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> As part of the agreement to allow the merger, T-Mobile promised the
> FTC/FCC that the Sprint brand would survive as an MVNO to provide
> "competition".
no.
>
> As part of the agreement to allow the merger, T-Mobile promised the
> FTC/FCC that the Sprint brand would survive as an MVNO to provide
> "competition".
> To achieve this, the Sprint brand and MNC must be freeded of any users
> so it can be spun off and the newly formed Sprint can then issue its own
> SIMs using that MNC and sign MVNO contract with T-Mobile.
> The original Sprint MVNOs would already have their own SIMs,
they were normal sprint sims, or more accurately, a uicc, which were
tied to the phone.
rest of your fantasyland crazytalk snipped.
sms
Jul 18, 2021, 12:40:53 PM7/18/21
to
would gain no benefit from spending the significant extra money for
Verizon postpaid.
The difference per year on Total Wireless, including factoring in the
veteran's discount on Verizon, and including taxes and fees, would be
$1176 per year additional for the closest 4 line Verizon plan ($45/line
plus taxes and fees). Without the veteran's discount it would be $1455
more per year.
The difference per year on Total Wireless, including factoring in the
veteran's discount on Verizon, and including taxes and fees, would be
$1134 per year additional for the closest 4 line Verizon plan ($45/line
plus taxes and fees). Without the veteran's discount it would be $1427
more per year.
You can see the spreadsheet at
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1z5kLNThPu6Oc9BgQ7PRgs_769A2UEHRTG5qD_z3zTgU/>.
The taxes and fees are for my address and will vary greatly based on
location (could be higher or lower). One of the savings of Visible and
Total Wireless is that most, or all, of the taxes and fees are included
in the base price.
The disadvantages of Total Wireless are:
• Only the first 100GB of shared data are at 5G or LTE speeds.
• Only 10GB of high-speed hot spot data per line
• No international roaming
• No Apple Watch support
• Minimal phone subsidies
The disadvantages of Visible are:
• Only one tethered device on hot spot at a time
• Hot spot data is throttled to 5Mb/s (though a VPN eliminates the
throttling).
• No international roaming
• No Apple Watch support (coming soon)
• Minimal phone subsidies
• Not all Verizon-compatible Android phones work on Visible
• No legacy CDMA support
For me, the disadvantages are not an issue.
• We never use even close to 100GB of high speed data or 40GB of hot
spot data.
• When we travel internationally we use SIM cards from the country or
region were visiting since the cost is magnitudes lower than paying the
carrier for international roaming.
• The Apple Watch support was an issue until it became possible to get a
separate phone number for the Apple Watch, decoupled from the iPhone.
• The amount of the phone subsidies on Verizon are far outweighed by the
lower yearly cost.
For example, an iPhone SE2020 on Verizon is "free" with a 24 month
"contract." On Total Wireless it is $200 (=$8.33/month for 24 months),
so the "free" phone from Verizon would be a yearly savings of $100 per
year per line. On Visible, the same phone is $384 or can be financed at
$16 per month, so the "free" phone from Verizon would be a yearly
savings of $192 per year per line.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once
only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the
community. Then they were quickly silenced, but now they have the same
right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner.” ― Umberto Eco
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
sms
Jul 18, 2021, 1:18:55 PM7/18/21
to
On 7/17/2021 3:30 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
<snip>
<snip>
> But former Sprint customers have Sprint SIM cards with the Sprint MNC.
> T-Mobiole is not selling these custoemrs when it is spinning off the
> Sprint brand so it needs them to change SIM to have a t-mo SIM card, at
> which point the Sprint brand and MNC will be unused and can be spun off
> into a new "empty" MVNO that can build customer base from scratch.
Judging from the actions of the three national carriers, they are tiring
> T-Mobiole is not selling these custoemrs when it is spinning off the
> Sprint brand so it needs them to change SIM to have a t-mo SIM card, at
> which point the Sprint brand and MNC will be unused and can be spun off
> into a new "empty" MVNO that can build customer base from scratch.
of selling wholesale voice, text, and data to MVNOs. They are marketing
their own aggressively priced prepaid services, Cricket, Metro, and
Visible. Verizon went one further and is trying to buy Tracfone from
América Móvil, with its 20+ million users. Red Pocket recently dropped
AT&T and Verizon from their low-cost 360 day plans because of the cost
of buying wholesale voice, text, and minutes and only sells T-Mobile on
their lower-cost plans.
Sprint's prepaid brands, Virgin and Boost, were terrible because unlike
Sprint postpaid, there was no off-network roaming. At least T-Mobile
gave Metro the same off-network roaming as T-Mobile postpaid.
T-Mobile/Metro coverage issues remain for now. In the San Francisco Bay
Area, as soon as you move to the more rural parts of the counties you
often lose coverage on T-Mobile. For example, the northern Santa Cruz
County, and southern San Mateo County coast is a good place to compare
coverage, use the interactive
coverage map at <https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage>.
You can switch between carriers easily. It's the same situation
throughout California when you go to more rural areas.
Of course you can also look at all the independent surveys if you want
to learn about the differences in network quality:
T-Mobile is rated last, of the three nationwide carriers in coverage
(see <https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/t-mobile-coverage-map>).
T-Mobile is rated last of the three nationwide carriers in network
quality (see
<https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2021-us-wireless-network-quality-performance-studies-volume-1>).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
“Above all, do not lie to yourself. A man who lies to himself and
listens to his own lie comes to a point where he does not discern any
truth either in himself or anywhere around him, and thus falls into
disrespect towards himself and others.” ― Fyodor Dostoevsky
----------------------------------------------------------------------
nospam
Jul 18, 2021, 1:25:12 PM7/18/21
to
In article <sd1npu$etm$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
<https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/t-mobile-ranks-first-4g-downlo
ad-speeds-but-at-t-leads-at-regional-level-opensignal>
T-Mobile narrowly snagged the top spot for fastest national 4G LTE
download speeds since March, but network upgrades drove significant
gains for AT&T, which led in regional speed breakdowns, according to
Opensignal零 latest report.
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Of course you can also look at all the independent surveys if you want
> to learn about the differences in network quality:
>
> T-Mobile is rated
first.
> Of course you can also look at all the independent surveys if you want
> to learn about the differences in network quality:
>
> T-Mobile is rated
<https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/t-mobile-ranks-first-4g-downlo
ad-speeds-but-at-t-leads-at-regional-level-opensignal>
T-Mobile narrowly snagged the top spot for fastest national 4G LTE
download speeds since March, but network upgrades drove significant
gains for AT&T, which led in regional speed breakdowns, according to
RonTheGuy
Jul 18, 2021, 1:48:53 PM7/18/21
to
On Jul 18, 2021, sms wrote
(in article<news:sd1lij$ia8$1...@dont-email.me>):
you're not comparing Verizon MVNOs to T-Mobile MVNOs to AT&T MVNO's.
You should compare Verizon family plans to T-Mobile & AT&T family plans
(which is what I would guess most of us are paying for).
(in article<news:sd1lij$ia8$1...@dont-email.me>):
> I can't speak for everyone of course, but for me the reason is that I
> would gain no benefit from spending the significant extra money for
> Verizon postpaid.
You can posts what you want but your comparisons are deceptive for me if
> would gain no benefit from spending the significant extra money for
> Verizon postpaid.
you're not comparing Verizon MVNOs to T-Mobile MVNOs to AT&T MVNO's.
You should compare Verizon family plans to T-Mobile & AT&T family plans
(which is what I would guess most of us are paying for).
badgolferman
Jul 18, 2021, 2:10:36 PM7/18/21
to
>
sms says he doesn’t see yours or Arlen’s posts. I guess he doesn’t like
anyone refuting him with facts.
nospam
Jul 18, 2021, 3:36:18 PM7/18/21
to
In article <sd1qqo$qv5$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, badgolferman
> >
>
> sms says he doesn靖 see yours or Arlen零 posts.
he says that, but he does see them.
> I guess he doesn靖 like
<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <sd1npu$etm$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
> > <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> Of course you can also look at all the independent surveys if you want
> >> to learn about the differences in network quality:
> >>
> >> T-Mobile is rated
> >
> > first.
> >
> > <https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/t-mobile-ranks-first-4g-downlo
> > ad-speeds-but-at-t-leads-at-regional-level-opensignal>
> > T-Mobile narrowly snagged the top spot for fastest national 4G LTE
> > download speeds since March, but network upgrades drove significant
> > gains for AT&T, which led in regional speed breakdowns, according to
> > Opensignal1s latest report.
> > In article <sd1npu$etm$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
> > <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> Of course you can also look at all the independent surveys if you want
> >> to learn about the differences in network quality:
> >>
> >> T-Mobile is rated
> >
> > first.
> >
> > <https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/t-mobile-ranks-first-4g-downlo
> > ad-speeds-but-at-t-leads-at-regional-level-opensignal>
> > T-Mobile narrowly snagged the top spot for fastest national 4G LTE
> > download speeds since March, but network upgrades drove significant
> > gains for AT&T, which led in regional speed breakdowns, according to
> >
>
> sms says he doesn靖 see yours or Arlen零 posts.
he says that, but he does see them.
> I guess he doesn靖 like
> anyone refuting him with facts.
he does not.
sms
Jul 18, 2021, 5:23:33 PM7/18/21
to
Note that in the San Francisco Bay Area T-Mobile is a non-starter for
anyone that travels outside of the urban core because of coverage
issues, not only in the nine county Bay Area, but throughout California.
But I added AT&T's Cricket and T-Mobile's Metro to the spreadsheet. They
don't offer savings at the level of Verizon's Visible or Total Wireless,
but they do still offer some savings.
nospam
Jul 18, 2021, 5:29:29 PM7/18/21
to
In article <sd264j$9t$1...@dont-email.me>, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:
>
> Note that in the San Francisco Bay Area T-Mobile is a non-starter for
> anyone that travels outside of the urban core because of coverage
> issues, not only in the nine county Bay Area, but throughout California.
that is false.
wrote:
>
> Note that in the San Francisco Bay Area T-Mobile is a non-starter for
> anyone that travels outside of the urban core because of coverage
> issues, not only in the nine county Bay Area, but throughout California.
sms
Jul 18, 2021, 8:13:42 PM7/18/21
to
On 7/18/2021 10:49 AM, RonTheGuy wrote:
I added three more sheets to the spreadsheet. All of the comparisons are
for four lines.
Now it has:
• Verizon postpaid versus Cricket, Metro, Visible, and Total Wireless
• T-Mobile postpaid versus Cricket, Metro, Visible, and Total Wireless
• AT&T postpaid versus Cricket, Metro, Visible, and Total Wireless
• Comparison of AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile postpaid
Key Takeaways:
• If you qualify for a veterans or corporate discount then Metro is
likely more expensive than T-Mobile postpaid, otherwise, Metro is $5
less per month.
• T-Mobile's postpaid plans are much less expensive than the closest
postpaid plans from AT&T or Verizon.
• If you need AT&T or Verizon, because of the coverage limitations of
T-Mobile, then using Cricket or Visible (or Total Wireless),
respectively, is much lower cost than postpaid.
0 new messages