There are now "unlock" apps on the app store (in addition to unlock emails)

[Horace Algier]

This is just FYI as I just got off the phone with USA T-Mobile because they
lied (four times) telling me that they lock *all* their phones when there
is a balance due on the phone (which just isn't true).

However, if your phone from T-Mobile is carrier locked, and if 40 days have
passed (even if you owe money for the phone) but your service is paid up
and not past due and your account isn't suspended, then T-Mobile *will*
unlock your phone.

There are TWO ways to T-mobile suggests you unlock your phone:
1. Ask them to email you an unlock code email (which you knew about)
2. Use the App Store unlock app (which is news to me as of today)

HERE IS THE IOS UNLOCK APP:
https://support.t-mobile.com/docs/DOC-14011

HERE IS THE ANDROID UNLOCK APP:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tmobile.simlock&hl=en

This unlock topic came up when I asked T-Mobile (multiple times) if the new
"free" iPhone6-to-iPhone7 trade in will be locked, to which they said
(i.e., they lied) that "all T-mobile phones are carrier locked if you owe
money on the phone".

I knew that wasn't true, but they insisted it was true, so I told them to
just send me the unlock code for the Nexus 5 that I financed from them for
two years, and this came back during the phone call, proving the Nexus 5
device was unlocked from the start (even though I owed money on it for two
years):
http://i.cubeupload.com/HpZFzy.jpg

My main point of this message is just informative:

a. Not all phones (even from the carrier & even if you owe money on them)
are locked from the outset.

b. If they are locked, T-Mobile will unlock them after 40 days, even if you
owe money on them (as long as your *service* contract is paid up at the
time).

There are two ways to unlock that phone at the 40-day mark:
1. The old way (with the email)
2. The new way (with the app)

HERE IS THE IOS UNLOCK APP:
https://support.t-mobile.com/docs/DOC-14011

HERE IS THE ANDROID UNLOCK APP:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tmobile.simlock&hl=en

This is fyi.

[nospam]

In article <nrb0f0$129i$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier

<hor...@horatio.net> wrote:

> This is just FYI as I just got off the phone with USA T-Mobile because they
> lied (four times) telling me that they lock *all* their phones when there
> is a balance due on the phone (which just isn't true).

you're so in over your head.

> However, if your phone from T-Mobile is carrier locked, and if 40 days have
> passed (even if you owe money for the phone) but your service is paid up
> and not past due and your account isn't suspended, then T-Mobile *will*
> unlock your phone.
>
> There are TWO ways to T-mobile suggests you unlock your phone:
> 1. Ask them to email you an unlock code email (which you knew about)
> 2. Use the App Store unlock app (which is news to me as of today)
>
> HERE IS THE IOS UNLOCK APP:
> https://support.t-mobile.com/docs/DOC-14011

did you even *read* what's on that page???

namely this part, which is at the *top*:
Device Unlock is an Android app that allows you to request and apply
a mobile device unlock directly from the device.

> HERE IS THE ANDROID UNLOCK APP:
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tmobile.simlock&hl=en
>
> This unlock topic came up when I asked T-Mobile (multiple times) if the new
> "free" iPhone6-to-iPhone7 trade in will be locked, to which they said
> (i.e., they lied) that "all T-mobile phones are carrier locked if you owe
> money on the phone".
>
> I knew that wasn't true, but they insisted it was true, so I told them to
> just send me the unlock code for the Nexus 5 that I financed from them for
> two years, and this came back during the phone call, proving the Nexus 5
> device was unlocked from the start (even though I owed money on it for two
> years):
> http://i.cubeupload.com/HpZFzy.jpg
>
> My main point of this message is just informative:

then you failed.

you're *so* fucking lost.

> a. Not all phones (even from the carrier & even if you owe money on them)
> are locked from the outset.
>
> b. If they are locked, T-Mobile will unlock them after 40 days, even if you
> owe money on them (as long as your *service* contract is paid up at the
> time).
>
> There are two ways to unlock that phone at the 40-day mark:
> 1. The old way (with the email)
> 2. The new way (with the app)
>
> HERE IS THE IOS UNLOCK APP:
> https://support.t-mobile.com/docs/DOC-14011
>
> HERE IS THE ANDROID UNLOCK APP:
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tmobile.simlock&hl=en
>
> This is fyi.

and wrong.

[Elfin]

Of course even assuming the phone is unlocked or can be unlocked before the 24 month financing agreement is paid off, he loses all of the credits the special trade-in/up deal is offering. That's because it isn't $650 for the iPhone 6+, it is 24 monthly credits of about $27 only applied to the account that is active. And with Verizon and AT&T those credits don't even start until the 3rd billing.

So if he moved the phone right away the full retail cost of the new iPhone 7 comes due and payable with no credits applied at all. Of course if Aardvarks case, since he is fucking his friend, the friend is on the hook for that money. In essence giving Aardvarks another freebie that really cost someone else.

Nice friend, huh?

--
Elfin

[Horace Algier]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 05:59:21 -0400, nospam wrote:

> Device Unlock is an Android app that allows you to request and apply
> a mobile device unlock directly from the device.

Ooops. My mistake. I apologize if there isn't an iOS app.
I have iOS devices, but they're all unlocked from the factory.
If you already know where the iOS app is, let us know.
I apologize if it doesn't exist (it didn't occur to me that it wouldn't
exist since the Android app exists - so the iOS app should also exist if
they carrier lock both types of phones).

[nospam]

In article <3f3jtb9tfs1c08qhk...@4ax.com>, Anthony R.

> How wrong, brave anonymous abuser? The OP wrote that using T-Mobile's app
> was an alternative to requesting the unlock code to be delivered by T-Mobile
> via email for manual entry and it appears to be exactly that.

you're as lost as he is.

this has nothing whatsoever to do with unlocking.

[nospam]

In article <nrc3hj$19pn$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier

you're so lost

[Horace Algier]

On 14 Sep 2016 07:58:43 -0500, Elfin wrote:

> Of course even assuming the phone is unlocked or can be unlocked before
> the 24 month financing agreement is paid off,

I think all you guys are hung up that you *think* T-Mobile will not unlock
a phone that you still owe money on.

AFAICT from calling T-Mobile and getting them to annotate my service record
with this same information that they told me, T-Mobile will unlock the new
iPhone 7 (if it's locked in the first place) only after that iPhone 7 has
been on the account for 40 days, even if the credits last for 2 years.

They atually don't care *what* you do with the iPhone.
They only care that you stay on your current service plan for 2 years.

They even ship phones unlocked which you finance for two years with them,
as I have proven by posting my own request yesterday for an unlock code for
my Nexus 5, which I bought from T-Mobile for just the California tax and
then paid 1/24th the price over a two-year period.

http://i.cubeupload.com/HpZFzy.jpg

[Horace Algier]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 18:58:38 +0100, Anthony R. Gold wrote:

> The OP wrote that using T-Mobile's app
> was an alternative to requesting the unlock code to be delivered by T-Mobile
> via email for manual entry and it appears to be exactly that.

You are correct.

What nospam is apparently saying is that I goofed in that I *thought* there
was *also* an iOS unlocking app from T-Mobile.

But the unlocking app is only on Android, apparently.

Other than that one mistake (that the iOS app does not exist apparently),
everything else was correct.

https://support.t-mobile.com/docs/DOC-14011

[nospam]

In article <nrc9r3$1mfo$8...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier

<hor...@horatio.net> wrote:

>
> Other than that one mistake (that the iOS app does not exist apparently),
> everything else was correct.

no it wasn't.

[Horace Algier]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 18:58:38 +0100, Anthony R. Gold wrote:

> The OP wrote that using T-Mobile's app
> was an alternative to requesting the unlock code to be delivered by T-Mobile
> via email for manual entry and it appears to be exactly that.

Hi Anthony,
The response from nospam is classic becuase he just doesn't like anytime
Android has functionality that iOS doesn't - so - all his posts are just
sour grapes.

Anyway, I called T-Mobile today to ask for details about the app from their
second-level support team, and it turns out that there is a caveat which
you should be aware of.

This is hard to swallow, but this is what they told me:

1. You can no longer ask for an unlock code to be sent to you by email if
your phone is eligable for the app.

2. The only phones eligiable for the Android unlocking app are the Samsung
Galaxy S5 and above, and the LG phones V10 and above and a few smaller
manufacturers.

3. If you have one of those phones, you *must* use the app, they say - and
- you will be faced with two choices - one of which may be grayed out:
a. Unlock for 30 days only
b. Unlock permanently

4. Whether or not a permanent unlock is available will only depend on
whether the phone is paid off or not, according to T-Mobile.

5. However, interestingly, if you have *any other phone* (iOS or Android),
then after 40 days of use on their service, they *will* unlock it
permanently "if" you say you're going overseas.

Given that, notice that you have *more functionality* if you *don't* have
the phones which quality for the Android app - in that you can permenantly
unlock any phone when going overseas after 40 days *except* those listed
phones, even if you still *owe* a balance on the phone!

Bear in mind, I was *extremely clear* with T-Mobile when I asked them these
questions, as I explicitly mentioned that I plan on giving the phone to
another person once I trade it in, and they said that as long as I stayed
on the T-Mobile service for 2 years, they don't care what I do with the
phone.

3.

[nospam]

In article <nrhcl6$1ta9$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier

<hor...@horatio.net> wrote:

>
> > The OP wrote that using T-Mobile's app
> > was an alternative to requesting the unlock code to be delivered by T-Mobile
> > via email for manual entry and it appears to be exactly that.
>
> Hi Anthony,
> The response from nospam is classic becuase he just doesn't like anytime
> Android has functionality that iOS doesn't - so - all his posts are just
> sour grapes.

i have no problem with android having functionality that ios doesn't
which is why i have android devices in addition to ios devices.

i do have a problem with those who lie about what ios can and cannot
do, lie about what i say or think and in general, talk out their ass.

> Bear in mind, I was *extremely clear* with T-Mobile when I asked them these
> questions, as I explicitly mentioned that I plan on giving the phone to
> another person once I trade it in, and they said that as long as I stayed
> on the T-Mobile service for 2 years, they don't care what I do with the
> phone.

as long as you keep paying for the phone, why would they care what you
do with it?

you wanted something for free. it ain't free.

[Horace Algier]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 14:46:20 -0400, nospam wrote:

> as long as you keep paying for the phone, why would they care what you
> do with it?
>
> you wanted something for free. it ain't free.

With respect to the trade-in-deal with T-Mobile, where you trade in an
iPhone 6 for an iPhone 7, you never *pay* for the phone. The fine print
shows that you simply *get* the phone.

What you do with the phone after you receive it is your business.
T-Mobile doesn't care *what* you do with the *phone*.

They only care that you stay on your current T-Mobile *service* for two
years.

That you can't distinguish between *service* and *phone* is disturbingly
obvious.

[Elfin]

On 14:30 16/09 , Horace Algier wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 14:46:20 -0400, nospam wrote:
>
>> as long as you keep paying for the phone, why would they care what you
>> do with it?
>>
>> you wanted something for free. it ain't free.
>
>With respect to the trade-in-deal with T-Mobile, where you trade in an
>iPhone 6 for an iPhone 7, you never *pay* for the phone. The fine print
>shows that you simply *get* the phone.
>

Incorrect as usual.

You 'pay' for the new phone with each phone bill for 2 years and they 'credit' back to you. And those credits are only applied as long as you have continuous service with them for 2 years.

>What you do with the phone after you receive it is your business.
>T-Mobile doesn't care *what* you do with the *phone*.
>
>They only care that you stay on your current T-Mobile *service* for two
>years.
>

Right. And if you drop their service before the 2 years are up, you will owe whatever retail balance is left and get no credits to offset. Just like Verizon and AT&T do.

>That you can't distinguish between *service* and *phone* is disturbingly
>obvious.
>

Similarly your attempts to change the deal is even more disturbingly obvious. And the way you would try to fuck your friend into being on the hook for a Verizon phone, even more so.

--
Elfin

[nospam]

In article <nrhh8b$57i$3...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier

<hor...@horatio.net> wrote:

>
> > as long as you keep paying for the phone, why would they care what you
> > do with it?
> >
> > you wanted something for free. it ain't free.
>
> With respect to the trade-in-deal with T-Mobile, where you trade in an
> iPhone 6 for an iPhone 7, you never *pay* for the phone. The fine print
> shows that you simply *get* the phone.

read it again.

ask for help on the bigger words, such as the ones with more than two
syllables.

> What you do with the phone after you receive it is your business.
> T-Mobile doesn't care *what* you do with the *phone*.

as long as you pay for it, exactly as i said.

> They only care that you stay on your current T-Mobile *service* for two
> years.

in other words, you're paying for it.

> That you can't distinguish between *service* and *phone* is disturbingly
> obvious.

the only one who can't distinguish the difference is you.

you're very confused.

[FPP]

On 2016-09-16 18:46:20 +0000, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> said:

> i do have a problem with those who lie about what ios can and cannot
> do, lie about what i say or think and in general, talk out their ass.

Maybe THAT'S why what he says stinks!
--
"After leaving office, Bill Clinton started a Foundation that helped
over 400,000,000 people. George Bush painted pictures of his dog."
-Richard Hine

[Rod Speed]

Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote

> nospam wrote

>> as long as you keep paying for the phone,
>> why would they care what you do with it?

>> you wanted something for free. it ain't free.

> With respect to the trade-in-deal with T-Mobile, where you trade
> in an iPhone 6 for an iPhone 7, you never *pay* for the phone.

Corse you do, you have to keep using
their expensive phone service for 2 years.

> The fine print shows that you simply *get* the phone.

The fine print shows nothing of the sort, it actually shows that
you have to keep paying their stupid price for a cellphone
service for 2 years otherwise you get to pay for the phone.

> They only care that you stay on your
> current T-Mobile *service* for two years.

And that is what you pay for the phone, stupid.

[Horace Algier]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 15:42:00 -0400, FPP wrote:

> Maybe THAT'S why what he says stinks!

My Dear FPP,
Have you *ever* added any value to any conversation in your entire life?

[Horace Algier]

On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 10:11:28 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> The fine print shows nothing of the sort, it actually shows that
> you have to keep paying their stupid price for a cellphone
> service for 2 years otherwise you get to pay for the phone.

You completely missed the very many times we said we'd stay on the service
anyway.

Out here, there really are only three *viable* choices:
1. Verizon (I left them for good for upping my contract when I replaced a
phone under warranty)
2. AT&T (I left them for good when their VP called me after my FCC
complaint to insist that a smart phone is uselss if it doesn't have data)
3. T-Mobile (I'm perfectly happy with them)

Since you *insist* that my T-mobile plan is *too expensive*, then just give
me a URL for a less expensive plan that gives me the same thing I have now.

That is, tell me how much it would cost (give me URLS!) for four phones
with unlimited text and phone (USA only) and 3.5GB (currently) of data?

If you can get that for less than $100 a month in the USA, it will be
impressive. Otherwise, you're not stating a fact.

[Horace Algier]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 15:40:58 -0400, nospam wrote:

> ask for help on the bigger words, such as the ones with more than two
> syllables.

You can't insult your way out of the fact you still thought until now that
T-Mobile charges you if you don't actually ever use the phone on the
service plan.

BTW, there's also a Costco avernue for the free iPhone 7 deal:
https://support.t-mobile.com/docs/DOC-32234

[Horace Algier]

On 16 Sep 2016 14:39:16 -0500, Elfin wrote:

> Right. And if you drop their service before the 2 years are up,
> you will owe whatever retail balance is left and get no credits
> to offset. Just like Verizon and AT&T do.

At least *you* finally understand that T-Mobile doesn't care *what* you do
with the phone.

All you have to do is remain on their service for the two years.

[nospam]

In article <nriccv$2an$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Horace Algier

<hor...@horatio.net> wrote:

>
> All you have to do is remain on their service for the two years.

which isn't free.

[nospam]

In article <nric6s$184e$5...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier

<hor...@horatio.net> wrote:

>
> > ask for help on the bigger words, such as the ones with more than two
> > syllables.
>
> You can't insult your way out of the fact you still thought until now that
> T-Mobile charges you if you don't actually ever use the phone on the
> service plan.

stop lying about what i think or know.

> BTW, there's also a Costco avernue for the free iPhone 7 deal:
> https://support.t-mobile.com/docs/DOC-32234

if they're free, why don't you go get 50 of them and flip them on ebay.

as you said, t-mobile doesn't care what you do with them.

[Horace Algier]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 23:19:07 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> BTW, there's also a Costco avernue for the free iPhone 7 deal:
>> https://support.t-mobile.com/docs/DOC-32234
>
> if they're free, why don't you go get 50 of them and flip them on ebay.
>
> as you said, t-mobile doesn't care what you do with them.

Because I don't have 50 iPhone 6s to trade in, that's why.
Remember, the iPhone 6 *was* free.
Totally free.
As in zero dollars.

It will cost $10 or so to fix the screen though.

So, in reality, she gets an iPhone 7 for $10 plus about $60 tax.
She already told me it's not worth it - but I might pay the tax for her
anyway as I think it's a good deal myself.

And I know a good deal when I see it.

[Horace Algier]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 23:19:04 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> All you have to do is remain on their service for the two years.
>
> which isn't free.

The assumption in both the Verizon and T-Mobile case is that the user is
gonna stay on the service anyway.

For example, I've been on T-Mobile for five years.
It's *better* (IMHO) than AT&T (who tried to screw me) and Verizon (who
screwed me), so I don't have anyone else to go to, even if I had wanted to.

Verizon upped my 2-year contract, about a decade ago, when I replaced a
broken Kyocera "smart" phone, so I dropped Verizon the day that renewed
contract expired and moved to AT&T.

AT&T had me on a no-data lock at my request on my Blackberry, but if I ever
put a smartphone on the line, they insisted that "for my protection" I
would have to have a data plan which they would *add* automatically for me
the moment they sensed an arbitrary "smart phone" IMEI. I complained to the
FCC and a VP from AT&T insisted that a smart phone was useless without data
so I dropped AT&T instantly and moved to T-Mobile.

T-Mobile hasn't screwed me yet, but if they do, I don't think there is
anyone else to go to that has as good coverage in the Silicon Valley as
those three.

[nospam]

In article <nrievj$1ank$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier

<hor...@horatio.net> wrote:

> It will cost $10 or so to fix the screen though.

good luck with that one. you're going to need it, for reasons well
beyond your ability to comprehend.

> And I know a good deal when I see it.

sure you do. that's why you fuck around with all sorts of crappy free
apps when a 99 cent app would greatly simply everything.

[Rod Speed]

Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote

> FPP wrote

>> Maybe THAT'S why what he says stinks!

> My Dear FPP,
> Have you *ever* added any value to any conversation in your entire life?

Yes he has.

[Rod Speed]

Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>> The fine print shows nothing of the sort, it actually shows that
>> you have to keep paying their stupid price for a cellphone
>> service for 2 years otherwise you get to pay for the phone.

> You completely missed the very many times
> we said we'd stay on the service anyway.

I missed nothing. Yes, you actually are stupid enough to keep doing that.

> Out here, there really are only three *viable* choices:

Wrong, as always.

> 1. Verizon (I left them for good for upping my
> contract when I replaced a phone under warranty)
> 2. AT&T (I left them for good when their VP called me after my FCC
> complaint to insist that a smart phone is uselss if it doesn't have data)
> 3. T-Mobile (I'm perfectly happy with them)

You are free to use a reseller of all of those.

> Since you *insist* that my T-mobile plan is *too expensive*, then just
> give
> me a URL for a less expensive plan that gives me the same thing I have
> now.

Get off your lard arse and do that for yourself.

> That is, tell me how much it would cost (give me URLS!) for four phones
> with unlimited text and phone (USA only) and 3.5GB (currently) of data?

Get off your lard arse and do that for yourself.

> If you can get that for less than $100 a month in the USA,
> it will be impressive. Otherwise, you're not stating a fact.

More of your bare faced lies.

[Rod Speed]

Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote

> nospam wrote

>> ask for help on the bigger words, such as
>> the ones with more than two syllables.

> You can't insult your way out of the fact you still thought
> until now that T-Mobile charges you if you don't actually
> ever use the phone on the service plan.

More of your lies. He has never ever said anything like that.

[Travis Bickle]

C'mon guys- who really cares about all that?

I mean like when the new car models are released each year, does anyone
start drooling over stories about what length and gauge wire goes from
the throttle to the fuel injector?

--
Everyone brings joy to my life. Some when they enter it and some when
they leave it.

[Rod Speed]

Travis Bickle <3S...@taxi.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote
>> Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote
>>> nospam wrote

>>>> as long as you keep paying for the phone,
>>>> why would they care what you do with it?

>>>> you wanted something for free. it ain't free.

>>> With respect to the trade-in-deal with T-Mobile, where you trade
>>> in an iPhone 6 for an iPhone 7, you never *pay* for the phone.

>> Corse you do, you have to keep using their
>> expensive phone service for 2 years.

>>> The fine print shows that you simply *get* the phone.

>> The fine print shows nothing of the sort, it actually shows that
>> you have to keep paying their stupid price for a cellphone
>> service for 2 years otherwise you get to pay for the phone.

>>> They only care that you stay on your current T-Mobile *service* for
>>> two years.

>> And that is what you pay for the phone, stupid.

> C'mon guys- who really cares about all that?

Those who care what they pay for a cellphone service do.

> I mean like when the new car models are released each year,
> does anyone start drooling over stories about what length
> and gauge wire goes from the throttle to the fuel injector?

Irrelevant to what we are discussing there.

[Horace Algier]

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 05:05:21 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> Those who care what they pay for a cellphone service do.

Rod,

You don't think in terms of "additional costs".

You keep ignoring the simple fact which is that I'm gonna stay with
T-mobile for the next two years, whether or not a "free" phone is involved.

I already *asked* and nobody here knows of a *better* service plan than
what I'm on now anyway, for the big three in the US, which is:
- $100 for 4 phones with unlim talk & text
- 3.5GB data (currently) per phone
- Special goodies when traveling overseas (which is why I moved off the
$60/month plan and now they won't let me back on that plan)

Plus, I've had all three, and I *like* T-Mobile, simply because they're far
more "consumer friendly" than are the other big two.

Therefore, the fact that you keep *saying* that the cost is in the service
is fine - because it is - but - you keep forgetting that I'm gonna *stay*
on the service anyway - and that there is no known ;ess-expsnsive
comparable service plan anyway on any of the big three in the US.

So there are no *additional* costs, whether I get the "free" phone or not
(other than the initial tax on the iPhone 7).

Do you concur?

[nospam]

In article <nrkgf8$i16$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier

<hor...@horatio.net> wrote:

>
> I already *asked* and nobody here knows of a *better* service plan than
> what I'm on now anyway, for the big three in the US, which is:
> - $100 for 4 phones with unlim talk & text
> - 3.5GB data (currently) per phone
> - Special goodies when traveling overseas (which is why I moved off the
> $60/month plan and now they won't let me back on that plan)

there are definitely better and cheaper plans, but why should anyone
bother to suggest anything to you when you ignore what people say and
just keep on arguing.

> Plus, I've had all three, and I *like* T-Mobile, simply because they're far
> more "consumer friendly" than are the other big two.

there are more than two others.

[Rod Speed]

Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>> Those who care what they pay for a cellphone service do.

> You don't think in terms of "additional costs".

You're wrong, as always. I ALWAYS think of the total cost.

> You keep ignoring the simple fact which is that I'm gonna stay with
> T-mobile for the next two years, whether or not a "free" phone is
> involved.

I'm ignoring nothing, I keep rubbing your stupid nose in the fact
that you are paying a stupid price for your cellphone services.

> I already *asked* and nobody here knows of a *better* service
> plan than what I'm on now anyway, for the big three in the US,

THAT’S WHERE YOU ARE FUCKING UP, FUCKWIT.

IT IS STUPID TO ONLY CONSIDER THE CARRIER THEMSELVES
AND NOT RESELLERS OF THOSE CARRIERS.

[Horace Algier]

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 11:32:52 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> I ALWAYS think of the total cost.

So do I.
There's nothing wrong with thinking about *total cost*, where, in fact, the
total cost, with or without the "free" iPhone 7 is the same for the next
two years (excepting the sales tax).

>> You keep ignoring the simple fact which is that I'm gonna stay with
>> T-mobile for the next two years, whether or not a "free" phone is
>> involved.
>
> I'm ignoring nothing, I keep rubbing your stupid nose in the fact
> that you are paying a stupid price for your cellphone services.

There is no plan from the big three in the USA that is better than mine.
And pay-as-you-go doesn't cut it (I've been there and done that).

Pay-as-you-go would drive the other 3 people nuts, in fact.
So they'd drive me nuts (since some are women!).

>> I already *asked* and nobody here knows of a *better* service
>> plan than what I'm on now anyway, for the big three in the US,
>
> THAT¢S WHERE YOU ARE FUCKING UP, FUCKWIT.
>
> IT IS STUPID TO ONLY CONSIDER THE CARRIER THEMSELVES
> AND NOT RESELLERS OF THOSE CARRIERS.

I have had Verizon.
I have had AT&T.
I have had T-Mobile.

They're all good and bad but if you know of a monthly plan by a "reseller"
for my 4 phones, that is *better* than mine, what *is* that plan?

Simply give me a company name that has a phone number that I can call as
soon as I get your response.

Just one word - a company name that has a phone number that I can call to
ask them what they'd offer to me to compete with my current T-Mobile plan
of 4 phones, unlimited talk & text, 3.5GB/month, and European goodies such
as unlimited data and 20 cents a minute.

Note: The kids text like fiends, and the wife sends only about 50 or so
text a day, while I probably send only about five a day on average (if
that).

The kids are on the phone 24/7 making calls to their friends, and they use
the data but the wife and I could do just as well with 200 MB of data or
less a month.

Only one kid bumps up against the data limits though (because she doesn't
have the sense to turn off sync of unnecessary stuff, mostly). The other
kid is a smarter kid and has data under control.

I'm sick of the pay-as-you-go restrictions, so, that's not an option (been
burned too many times as I don't keep up with expiry dates).

My point in explaining my needs is that I don't have to exactly match my
current T-Mobile plan - but I have to match the *needs* of the 4 members of
the plan.

Me? I could do just fine with something like 10 calls a day and 10 texts a
day and 500KB a day - but there are others involved some of whom are kids,
and half of whom are not technically astute (which makes life difficult
technically). (The boys know far more than the girls, in almost everything,
except makeup and clothes and fashion and cooking, etc.).

[Horace Algier]

On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 18:42:06 -0400, nospam wrote:

> there are definitely better and cheaper plans

No plan suggested for the big three was better for 4 phones, unlim calls
and text, and at least 3.5GB/phone/month with European goodies (unlimited
data and calls at 20 cents a minute both ways).

If there was a better plan on the big three, I'd already be on it.

NOTE: I already discussed I'm sick and tired of the pay-as-you-go
shenanigans, which I've done with AT&T & T-Mobile for years.

[Rod Speed]

Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>> I ALWAYS think of the total cost.

> So do I.
> There's nothing wrong with thinking about *total cost*, where, in fact,
> the
> total cost, with or without the "free" iPhone 7 is the same for the next
> two years (excepting the sales tax).

Only because you are actually stupid enough to be paying for the
'free' phone even when you arent actually getting a free phone.

>>> You keep ignoring the simple fact which is that I'm gonna stay with
>>> T-mobile for the next two years, whether or not a "free" phone is
>>> involved.

>> I'm ignoring nothing, I keep rubbing your stupid nose in the fact
>> that you are paying a stupid price for your cellphone services.

> There is no plan from the big three in the USA

Only a terminal fuckwit such as yourself is actually stupid enough
to only ever use one of the big three and not a reseller of those.

> And pay-as-you-go doesn't cut it (I've been there and done that).

> Pay-as-you-go would drive the other 3 people nuts, in fact.
> So they'd drive me nuts (since some are women!).

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

>>> I already *asked* and nobody here knows of a *better* service
>>> plan than what I'm on now anyway, for the big three in the US,

>> THAT'S WHERE YOU ARE FUCKING UP, FUCKWIT.

>> IT IS STUPID TO ONLY CONSIDER THE CARRIER THEMSELVES
>> AND NOT RESELLERS OF THOSE CARRIERS.

> I have had Verizon.
> I have had AT&T.
> I have had T-Mobile.

> They're all good and bad but if you know of a monthly plan by a "reseller"
> for my 4 phones, that is *better* than mine, what *is* that plan?

Like nospam said, no one is going to do your work for you,
you'll just be a terminal fuckwit and ignore it whatever is found.

[Horace Algier]

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 15:25:47 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> Like nospam said, no one is going to do your work for you,

In other words, you just made it up and can't prove a word you said.

I prove what I say; you never do.

Here's "my" T-Mobile plan:
1. No contract 4 phones for $100/month (plus regulatory stuff)
2. Unlimited calls to/from usa & unlimited texts
3. 2-1/2GB data per phone (special promo of 4GB data up to 2/19/2017)
4. In Europe, unlimited data & all in-country and to/from USA calls are 20
cents/minute
5. Tablets are free 200GB/month data
6. I can use *any* GSM phone that I want to use (they don't care)

I moved off the $60/month plan to the $100/month plan mostly for the Europe
plan since we live in Europe every year for at least a month or two.

If I want *more* data (I never do), it's:
TABLET:
- add $10 for 2GB/month (which you can add or cancel at any time)
- add $20 for 6GB/month (which you can add or cancel at any time)
PHONE:
- add $15 for 6GB/month (which you can add or cancel at any time)
- add $30 for 10GB/month (which you can add or cancel at any time)
- add $45 for unlimited data (which you can add or cancel at any time)

Does *anyone* on this entire set of newsgroups have a *better* plan that
that above which averages $25/month per phone (plus fees) for unlimited
calls and texts and 2.5GB of data and good Europe prices?

If so, by way of comparison, what does *your* plan for 4 phones cost and
deliver?

[Horace Algier]

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 07:11:49 +0000 (UTC), Horace Algier wrote:

> Does *anyone* on this entire set of newsgroups have a *better* plan that
> that above which averages $25/month per phone (plus fees) for unlimited
> calls and texts and 2.5GB of data and good Europe prices?

While it's impressive how often Rod Speed and nospam can't back up what
they say, I can, and do, so here's a list of the lowest cost reasonable
plans available currently (this article is dated June 21, 2016).

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2375644,00.asp
The Best Cheap Cell Phone Plans You've Never Heard Of

[Rod Speed]

Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>> Like nospam said, no one is going to do your work for you,

> In other words, you just made it up and can't prove a word you said.

More of your lies.

After I put in considerable effort pointing out the advantages
of using a cloud, only to have you, the terminal fuckwit, actually
stupid enough to keep proclaiming that manually moving stuff
about using bluetooth is better, you'll have to pardon me if I
don’t actually bother to waste my time with rubbing your
stupid nose in where you can do better than T-Mobile.

> I prove what I say; you never do.

More of your lies with the use of the cloud, how to
play youtube videos with then screen off, etc etc etc.

Like I said, when you can't do any better than lie thru
your fucking teeth, here goes the chain on your lying shit.

[Horace Algier]

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 19:21:32 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> lying shit.

Your language skills are impressive.

[Rod Speed]

"Horace Algier" <hor...@horatio.net> wrote in message
news:nrn6ab$hbp$2...@gioia.aioe.org...

> On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 19:21:32 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> lying shit.
>
> Your language skills are impressive.

Your pathetic excuse for bullshit/trolling never ever was.

[Horace Algier]

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 09:46:54 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

>>> lying shit.
>>
>> Your language skills are impressive.
>
> Your pathetic excuse for bullshit/trolling never ever was.

1. You have no concept of bullshit - since *all* my threads are factual.
2. This thread, for example, is factual.
3. I may make mistakes (such as the lack of an iOS app) but in the end, the
*thread* (not any particular post) contains the facts.

You have absolutely no concept of what a "troll" is.
To you, a thread that contains facts that *you* don't like - is trolling.

Just because *you* don't like the facts, doesn't make the thread trolling.

[Rod Speed]

Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>>>> lying shit.

>>> Your language skills are impressive.

>> Your pathetic excuse for bullshit/trolling never ever was.

> 1. You have no concept of bullshit - since *all* my threads are factual.

More of your bare faced lies/pathetic excuse for a troll.

> 2. This thread, for example, is factual.

More of your bare faced lies/pathetic excuse for a troll.

That bullshit of yours still right at the top is nothing
even remotely like that, you pathetic excuse for a
lying bullshit artist/pathetic excuse for a troll. In
spades with the numbered lies that follow it.

> 3. I may make mistakes (such as the lack of an iOS app)

No may about it, you pathetic excuse for a
lying bullshit artist/pathetic excuse for a troll.

> but in the end, the *thread* (not any
> particular post) contains the facts.

More of your bare faced lies with this thread
alone, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit
artist/pathetic excuse for a troll. Not a single
fact present at all.

> You have absolutely no concept of what a "troll" is.

Easy to claim, you pathetic excuse for a lying
bullshit artist/pathetic excuse for a troll.

> To you, a thread that contains facts
> that *you* don't like - is trolling.

Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying
thru your fucking teeth, as you always do, you pathetic
excuse for a lying bullshit artist/pathetic excuse for a troll.

There isnt a single fact to like or dislike in
this thread, you pathetic excuse for a lying
bullshit artist/pathetic excuse for a troll.

> Just because *you* don't like the facts,
> doesn't make the thread trolling.

Having fun thrashing that straw man,
you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit
artist/pathetic excuse for a troll ?

[PAS]

On 9/16/2016 11:57 PM, Horace Algier wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 23:19:07 -0400, nospam wrote:
>
>>> BTW, there's also a Costco avernue for the free iPhone 7 deal:
>>> https://support.t-mobile.com/docs/DOC-32234
>> if they're free, why don't you go get 50 of them and flip them on ebay.
>>
>> as you said, t-mobile doesn't care what you do with them.
> Because I don't have 50 iPhone 6s to trade in, that's why.
> Remember, the iPhone 6 *was* free.
> Totally free.
> As in zero dollars.

There's no free lunch or phone. The trade-in has value, say $300.00 for
example. You're handing them $300.00 and getting an iPhone 7. Your plan
also has built-in cost that pays for subsidized phones. Whether you
think so or not, or whether or not the fine print indicates, you're
paying for that iPhone 7.

[Horace Algier]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 11:42:45 -0400, PAS wrote:

> There's no free lunch or phone. The trade-in has value, say $300.00 for
> example. You're handing them $300.00 and getting an iPhone 7. Your plan
> also has built-in cost that pays for subsidized phones. Whether you
> think so or not, or whether or not the fine print indicates, you're
> paying for that iPhone 7.

You bring up perfectly valid points, which I don't think *anyone* is
disagreeing with, since they're pretty commononly excepted truisms...

1. There is no free lunch or free phone
2. The postpaid service plan has a built-in cost that subsidizes phones

To clarify, while we never *paid* for the cracked-screen 64GB iPhone 6, it
has a "value", which you asssessed at $300, so I'll accept that as its
value.

Following your lead, we could *sell* the old 64GB iPhone 6 for $300 cash,
and, then *buy* an unlocked Qualcomm-modem 32GB iPhone 7 for $650 plus
about $50 sales tax.

So the iPhone 7 would cost $400 in the end.

As for the postpaid "service plan", remember that I already have 4 phones
on the *best* service plan in my area, bar none, for what "I" need, which
is:
a. Unlimited calls and texts (free USA calls)
b. Some data (currently 4GB/month/phone)
c. Travel goodies (20 cents/minute calls & unlimited data in Europe)

Despite all the duplicitously coy responses to the contrary from Rod Speed,
*nobody* can find a *better* postpaid price:performance plan with similar
coverage in the Silicon Valley area. Nobody.

Not on T-Mobile.
Not on Verizon.
Not on AT&T.

Not even Google Fi (which is relatively close though but it requires all
new phones!).

These are the best cell phone plans and deals out there
DATE: Monday, September 19th 2016
http://www.clark.com/best-cell-phone-deals-for-2016

Since *nobody* can find a better plan than I can, we leave it that, yes,
the phones are subsidized by the plan, but they'd have to be subsidized
anyway - whether or not I get the "free" iPhone 7.

[nospam]

In article <nrrq3n$1qel$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier

<hor...@horatio.net> wrote:

> Since *nobody* can find a better plan than I can,

they can, they just aren't interested in helping you anymore, and
'better' depends on each person's needs anyway. what's better for one
person is worse for another.

[PAS]

I doubt you'll find a cheaper plan than the one you are already on. May
I ask how long you've had this plan?

[Rod Speed]

Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote

> PAS wrote

>> There's no free lunch or phone. The trade-in has value, say
>> $300.00 for example. You're handing them $300.00 and getting
>> an iPhone 7. Your plan also has built-in cost that pays for
>> subsidized phones. Whether you think so or not, or whether
>> or not the fine print indicates, you're paying for that iPhone 7.

> You bring up perfectly valid points, which I don't think *anyone* is
> disagreeing with, since they're pretty commononly excepted truisms...

You have in fact repeatedly claimed that the 7 would
be a free phone when it is nothing of the kind.

> 1. There is no free lunch or free phone
> 2. The postpaid service plan has a built-in cost that subsidizes phones

> To clarify, while we never *paid* for the cracked-screen 64GB iPhone 6, it
> has a "value", which you asssessed at $300, so I'll accept that as its
> value.

> Following your lead, we could *sell* the old 64GB iPhone 6 for $300 cash,
> and, then *buy* an unlocked Qualcomm-modem 32GB iPhone 7 for $650 plus
> about $50 sales tax.

> So the iPhone 7 would cost $400 in the end.

> As for the postpaid "service plan", remember that I already have 4 phones
> on the *best* service plan in my area, bar none, for what "I" need,

Another lie.

> which is:
> a. Unlimited calls and texts (free USA calls)
> b. Some data (currently 4GB/month/phone)
> c. Travel goodies (20 cents/minute calls & unlimited data in Europe)

> Despite all the duplicitously coy responses to the contrary from Rod
> Speed,

More of your bare faced lies.

> *nobody* can find a *better* postpaid price:performance plan
> with similar coverage in the Silicon Valley area. Nobody.

No one has actually been stupid enough to waste their
time because you would just ignore everything.

> Not on T-Mobile.
> Not on Verizon.
> Not on AT&T.

More of your lies.

> Not even Google Fi (which is relatively close
> though but it requires all new phones!).

> These are the best cell phone plans and deals out there
> DATE: Monday, September 19th 2016
> http://www.clark.com/best-cell-phone-deals-for-2016

Wrong, as always.

> Since *nobody* can find a better plan than I can,

More of your lies.

> we leave it that, yes, the phones are subsidized by the plan,

So they arent in fact free at all.

> but they'd have to be subsidized anyway -
> whether or not I get the "free" iPhone 7.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

And it makes a hell of a lot more sense to keep the
6 until the design fault manifests and see apple
replace it when that happens, with a phone with
at least as much memory, and no sales tax to pay,

But again, you just keep ignoring what everyone
tells you, so no one is going to bother rubbing your
stupid pig ignorant nose in what is better value for
you than that ripoff plan you are currently stupid
enough to use.

[Elfin]

Based on postings in other forums, if he decides to get the iPhone 7 deal he will have to switch to their new one size fits all plan.

--
Elfin

[Horace Algier]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 14:06:25 -0400, PAS wrote:

> I doubt you'll find a cheaper plan than the one you are already on. May
> I ask how long you've had this plan?

When I left AT&T, they were forcing people with new plans to have data, and
it was when I was still using a Blackberry so, it was about 5 years ago
that I left AT&T for T-mobile.

At that time, I had a $60/month family plan of 4 phones with zero data, and
I was fine with that.

I wish I had kept it, but I travel to Europe so often that I needed the
Euro bonuses of the $100/month plan, which was 20 cents a minute in Europe
for any call and unlimited data in Europe.

I've been on *that* $100/month plan for a couple of years now.
They no longer offer it, but just today I called T-Mobile and they tried to
get me on this plan:

T-Mobile ONE
- automatic payment
- $140/month for 4 phones
- Unlimited talk & text & data
- Some additional Euro goodies (not worth much though)

So, basically, for $40/month for 4 phones, I can get all 4 on unlimited
data where they can "tether" at 3G speeds. When asked what tethering meant
to them, they gave me BS so I asked for the second level of support, and
what they call "tethering" is actually hot spotting because no cable is
involved.

So, for 4 phones, my choices are:
a. $100/month with currently 4GB of data per phone (nominally 2.5 GB)
b. $140/month with unlimited data (and unlimited 3G hot spotting)

Since I'm fine with the 4GB of data (only one person in the group, which
includes more than the local family uses any data at all) the $100/month
plan for 4 phones is just fine.

There is no better plan that anyone actually *knows* about, although Rod
Speed and nospam (as always) allude coyishly to mysterious non-existent
plans, just because they have nothing to offer of any concrete value.

---
Bu e-posta virüslere karşı Avast antivirüs yazılımı tarafından kontrol edilmiştir.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Horace Algier]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:32:11 -0400, nospam wrote:

> 'better' depends on each person's needs anyway. what's better for one
> person is worse for another.

The fact there are only a few plans per carrier belies your statement.

Fact is, there aren't as varied needs as you imply.

a. Most get unlimited USA talk nowadays, but some could do with a lot less
b. Most get unlimited text nowadays, but some could do with a lot less
c. Most have a GB or so of data nowadays, but some could do with a lot less

That's about it for the basic needs of *most* people.
The fact that the carriers don't offer a lot of different plans shows that.

You are welcome to disagree with me on minor points (e.g., 1GB of data
versus 2GB of data) but it doesn't change the overall fact that there are
really only a couple of levels of service overall for the postpaid family
plans that I was discussing.

[Rod Speed]

"Horace Algier" <hor...@horatio.net> wrote in message

news:nrt49d$1ioc$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

More of your bare faced lies. We don’t bother because
you ignore anything anyone ever finds for you.

[Rod Speed]

Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote

> nospam wrote

>> 'better' depends on each person's needs anyway.
>> what's better for one person is worse for another.

> The fact there are only a few plans per carrier

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.

> belies your statement.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

> Fact is, there aren't as varied needs as you imply.

Even sillier than you usually manage, and he didn’t imply, he stated.

> a. Most get unlimited USA talk nowadays,

You have no fucking idea if that is true or not.

> but some could do with a lot less

> b. Most get unlimited text nowadays,

You have no fucking idea if that is true or not.

> but some could do with a lot less

> c. Most have a GB or so of data nowadays,

You have no fucking idea if that is true or not.

> but some could do with a lot less

> That's about it for the basic needs of *most* people.

You have no fucking idea if that is true or not.

> The fact that the carriers don't offer a lot of different plans

Because the resellers do that, fuckwit.

> shows that.

Pig arse it does.

> You are welcome to disagree with me on minor points

We are welcome to expose your lies for the world to point and laugh at.

> (e.g., 1GB of data versus 2GB of data) but it doesn't change the

> overall fact that there arereally only a couple of levels of service

> overall for the postpaid family plans that I was discussing.

Because you stupidly restrict yourself to the carriers themselves.