 | | Thanks T-Mobile With HSPA+, this should be pretty awesome.. for the first 5GB that is. NOW their data options are competitive.. before they we're atrocious. | |
|
 |  GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 | Re: Thanks T-Mobile This is awesome news for T-Mobile!
Screw you AT&T and Verizon for imposing such harsh restrictions on your *clearly* oversold networks.
--
My Blog 2.0 | |
|
| |  FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | Re: Thanks T-Mobile they keep giving me fewer and fewer reasons to leave when my contract is up. god bless them for knowing how to play the game.
--
sbcglobal.net speedtest result 11/11/09 - 5256kbps | |
|
| | | Yes agreed! Thank you T-Mobile, you keep giving me more reasons to stick with you!
Now only if they could up the ante on their HSPA+ coverage. I still leach off a 2G tower at my home in Chicago. | |
|
| |  SnakeoilIgnore Button. The coward's feature.Premium
join:2000-08-05
Mentor, OH
kudos:1 | Re: Thanks T-Mobile BRavo to T-mobile | |
|
| |
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Free BB tethering No input on laptop use except using Blackberry to tether: it is a nice, free feature. | |
|
| | | Re: Free BB tethering Yep, free tethering is possible on WnMo phones too which is a great feature considering that:
1 ATT & VZW charge $15/$30 per month depending on phone data plan, and:
2 Sprint officially diabled tethering on consumer data plans as of April 10 2010 as per threads on '»www.evdoforums.com'
but I prefer aircards as a matter of convienience for which TMo's 5 Gig plan is now only $40 per month. Gotta love TMo. | |
|
| | | | Re: Free BB tethering said by podstolom:2 Sprint officially disabled tethering on consumer data plans as of April 10 2010 as per threads on '» www.evdoforums.com' 'Officially' no longer on Sprint but it is still doable on all of the smartphones for no extra charge (unofficially). Sprint doesn't seem to be doing anything to stop it as long as you don't go over the 5GB limit. Then again, has anyone received overcharges from Sprint? I go over 5GB once in a while and haven't been charged. | |
|
|  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | Free Android tethering also. | |
|
| | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: Free BB tethering Nice. Didn't realize that. | |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | finally someone who gets it This what satellite does. While satellite sucks at least they don't try to charge you $10,000 for going over their crappy cap. Hopefully this will lead to at&t and Verizon to do the same. I still think 5 GB is way too low. But at least if you go over the worst that happens is your speed is reduced which solves the problem of too many people taxing the network. | |
|
| | | Re: finally someone who gets it LOL yea, but satellite will throttle you to sub dialup speeds. | |
|
| | | | Re: finally someone who gets it Yes, a whopping 14 kbps on HughesNet I believe.  | |
|
| | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: finally someone who gets it said by Karl Bode:Yes, a whopping 14 kbps on HughesNet I believe. 14 kbps or a bill for $10,000. Pick your poison. By the way Hughesnet has cap free times form 2AM -7 AM EST. Something mobile doesn't offer even though they kind of invented nights and week-ends concept with thier minutes.
Well the article doesn't mention what speed you're throttled down to. Hopefully nothing lower than 1Xrtt which is what about 80-100 kbps? | |
|
| | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: finally someone who gets it CricKet does something similar...I hear they throttle down to 200 kbps...guessing that TMo will equal that or surpass it.
Also, have you used HughesNet? You're comparing a sat setup to cellular...two totally different ball games. | |
|
| | | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: finally someone who gets it said by iansltx:CricKet does something similar...I hear they throttle down to 200 kbps...guessing that TMo will equal that or surpass it. Also, have you used HughesNet? You're comparing a sat setup to cellular...two totally different ball games. No I have no need to use either actually. I can compare them because both have sucky caps and low speeds compared to DSL or cable. Both handle overages differently. As bad as being throttled to below dial-up is it's less outrageous than $51.20 per GB overage fees that at&t and Verizon charge.
As I said as far as Hughesnet form 2AM-7AM you can download as much as you want and it doesn't count against their cap. That right there puts it ahead of cellular.
As I said it's START for T-Mobile( and hopefully others ). Raising the cap and having cap free times also need to be implimented. | |
|
| | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| Re: finally someone who gets it Again, have you USED sat internet? Please nswer that question. From someone who has used WB the service is barely usable as-is...throttling to 128 kbps is a rather lousy proposition.
Also, mobile broadband isn't meant as a fixed line substitute except for Clear WiMAX. Yet anyway. Comparing a one-ounce mobile broadband card with no cables and a huge coverage footprint to a eight-ounce cable modem that requires a coaxial line to your location is comparing apples to oranges. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: finally someone who gets it I think his point is even if it's a lousy proposition and totally crippling speed throttling, it beats having to pay $51/GB or surprise, here's your $5,000 overage bill. I don't think you need to use the service to make that statement.
I'll admit, I'd like to see the Gov step in and say if you charge $30 for 5GB ($6/GB) then you can't add more than $1 more per GB there after. So $7/GB after your initial cap. Or something reasonable like that. | |
|
| | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: finally someone who gets it Whereas I think that the government stepping into something will inevitably result in service costs going up for the average user, not down. Price controls can't readily be exercised because we aren't talking about a monopoly here. What we need is more competition...like Clear...not artificial regulation that will be outdated once it makes it to reality. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: finally someone who gets it It depends how they act. If the say "Price controls" I'd be with you. If they say "open access" and create new competition, I'd say the opposite.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: finally someone who gets it Open access on what level though? The most expensive part of a wireless network is currently backhaul... | |
|
| | | | | | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: finally someone who gets it A also agree wireless is a bit of a different game.
However when it comes to access to wired infrastructure, I'd say open access policies should be encouraged.
It's too bad so many of the Telecoms created after TA1996 got crushed. That Backhaul would have been a lot cheaper.
I think this is one reason providers should really be embracing Femtocells rather then penalizing or charging so much more for using them.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: finally someone who gets it On DSL or active optical, I agree; it's easy to do and should be allowed...even in today's climate companies like Sonic.net are making a go of it. However it's harder to do on PON (hmm, wonder why Verizon used PON for FiOS?) and coax, unless you do it on the aggregation level... | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | said by iansltx:Whereas I think that the government stepping into something will inevitably result in service costs going up for the average user, not down. Price controls can't readily be exercised because we aren't talking about a monopoly here. What we need is more competition...like Clear...not artificial regulation that will be outdated once it makes it to reality. Then why did international roaming price caps in the EU cause overall monthly bills to drop significantly? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: finally someone who gets it Because the regulators involved with that were paid to regulate. Also, with supercarriers like Vodafone the market was moving that way already.
Plus, US carriers are quite good about roaming. It's just expensive all around | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | said by sonicmerlin:said by iansltx:Whereas I think that the government stepping into something will inevitably result in service costs going up for the average user, not down. Price controls can't readily be exercised because we aren't talking about a monopoly here. What we need is more competition...like Clear...not artificial regulation that will be outdated once it makes it to reality. Then why did international roaming price caps in the EU cause overall monthly bills to drop significantly? point out in the Constitution where it gives the government the ability to set price controls on private market goods and services and maybe i'd agree with you. probably not tho...
--
»valid.canardpc.com/cache/screens···7860.png | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: finally someone who gets it Where was it when they regulated the airline industry or power. How about the good 'ole interstate commerce clause, it's a nice catch all. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: finally someone who gets it said by Uncle Paul:Where was it when they regulated the airline industry or power. How about the good 'ole interstate commerce clause, it's a nice catch all. which was none of the government's business either.
the interstate commerce clause prevents states from preventing business and trade across their borders. it does not give the federal government the the ability to regulate any "interstate" business. it was designed to promote free trade, not smother it!
--
»valid.canardpc.com/cache/screens···7860.png | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: finally someone who gets it While that may be true, court rulings are more often than not based on precedence and in this case it's against you. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: finally someone who gets it said by Uncle Paul:While that may be true, court rulings are more often than not based on precedence and in this case it's against you. i agree. precedent is not always correct, and reliance/weighting is something that needs to be addressed somehow when it relates directly to the constitution. too much is taken for granted that is based on previous bad court rulings
--
»valid.canardpc.com/cache/screens···7860.png | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·DIRECTV
·Optimum Online
·Cablevision
| Re: finally someone who gets it In a truly free hypothetical world the notions of free trade unencumbered by any government regulation, when you move into spaces occupied by only a few extremely powerful corporations, in which price fixing is likely. and the costs of entering the market for new players makes new competition virtually impossible.
In the real world we have to regulate these companies in these markets, to ensure fairness to the consumer because the self correcting aspects of the free market are no longer in effect.
Phone service is a basic utility, which most people can't merely go without, this also destroys the self correcting aspects of the free market, I'm talking any type of service, landlines, cell, VoIP. Wonder why AT&T and Verizon haven't lowered land line rates, maybe it's because they want everyone on even more expensive cell phone plans and secretly don't mind losing the revenue. They control both markets. | |
|
| | | | | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by iansltx:Again, have you USED sat internet? Please nswer that question. I did answer your question. Please actually read what I wrote and you'll have your answer.
From someone who has used WB the service is barely usable as-is...throttling to 128 kbps is a rather lousy proposition. You rather WB charges you $50 per GB? WB also doesn't have cap free time zones.
Also, mobile broadband isn't meant as a fixed line substitute except for Clear WiMAX. Yet anyway. Comparing a one-ounce mobile broadband card with no cables and a huge coverage footprint to a eight-ounce cable modem that requires a coaxial line to your location is comparing apples to oranges. To my friends that live just a few miles out of town and thus out of reach of DSL and cable internet mobile broadband is the only internet they can get besides satellite. | |
|
| | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: finally someone who gets it I did read all of your post. Was just making a point that you don't know what sat internet is like, especially when throttled!
As far as the charge per GB thing goes, HN effectively charges $25 per GB through its token system, since after throttling their internet service is useless.
As far as MBB goes, I didn't say it wasn't being used as a wireline replacement (have a few friends with Sprint-based Milenicom, one of which was a customer I set up). However 3G wasn't INTENDED to serve as a fixed line replacement. Things are getting better now with Sprint and T-Mobile, but that fact still remains. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: finally someone who gets it said by iansltx:I did read all of your post. Was just making a point that you don't know what sat internet is like, especially when throttled! If you read my post why did you ask me to answer the question when I CLEARLY already answered the question?
As far as the charge per GB thing goes, HN effectively charges $25 per GB through its token system, since after throttling their internet service is useless. You can use it from 2AM to 7 AM EST since throttling doesn't apply. Point is HN doesn't charge overages you get throttled. If I'm being charged $51 per GB guess what I'm not using my internet connection for the rest of the month. That's better?
As far as MBB goes, I didn't say it wasn't being used as a wireline replacement (have a few friends with Sprint-based Milenicom, one of which was a customer I set up). However 3G wasn't INTENDED to serve as a fixed line replacement. Things are getting better now with Sprint and T-Mobile, but that fact still remains. As I stated it's a START. Verizon will have all it's areas upgraded to 4G in 3 years. Are you suggesting 4G is not a wireline replacement? It would be nice if by then Verizon gets the point that a 5 GB cap is a joke and $51 per GB overage is totally fucked up. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: finally someone who gets it Interesting...you didn't seem to read my previous post on this topic: Clear is marketing their service as a wireline replacement; they have enough capacity to do so, so they're doing it. Who knows what Verizon will do... | |
|
| | | | | | | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: finally someone who gets it said by iansltx:Interesting...you didn't seem to read my previous post on this topic: Clear is marketing their service as a wireline replacement; they have enough capacity to do so, so they're doing it. Who knows what Verizon will do... Great for Clear. They don't provide service in my area and probably never will, Verizon does. | |
|
| | | said by BF69:This what satellite does. While satellite sucks at least they don't try to charge you $10,000 for going over their crappy cap. Hopefully this will lead to at&t and Verizon to do the same. I still think 5 GB is way too low. But at least if you go over the worst that happens is your speed is reduced which solves the problem of too many people taxing the network. But you should still have the choice to have full speed and pay per KB / MB after that.
Some Satellite give you that choice. | |
|
| | | | Re: finally someone who gets it Yeah they've also started this thing with "tokens" where you can buy buckets of emergency bandwidth for when you go over... | |
|
 brandonSome truth included in this post.Premium
join:2003-03-31
Hurley, MS | Social Engineering at its finest... Give everyone a terrible punishment for a long time, then change it to a slightly less terrible punishment, and the crowds thank you for it!
So many people that can't think for themselves... | |
|
|
See 10 replies to this post |
|
| | They do this with prepaid accounts in Germany, too I've used T-mobile's prepaid 3G service in Germany. You buy a USB dongle for about 5 euros, and can then access their 3G network as needed (e.g. while traveling). When I used it last year, they charged 5 Euros for 24 hours of access. Their bandwidth cap was 1GB/day (!); users exceeding this limit would not be disconnected, but would have their access speed sharply reduced. I never hit this cap, but I was told that the service would still be fine for email or light web browsing, but that it wouldn't be suitable for any higher bandwidth applications.
BTW, while their TOS forbids the use of VoIP, Skype worked just fine over their 3G net. | |
|
tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·T-Mobile US
| Throttling According to some posts on HowardForums, they throttle you back to GPRS. It's practically hearsay though, since I have yet to see any reports of users actually getting throttled, even after surpassing 10-15GB of transfers.
Chances are that they'll probably let you continue to transfer at full speeds, even after 5GB - they simply want to reserve the right to throttle you if it's deemed necessary.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
| iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Throttling Sounds about right. Where TMo has plenty of bandwidth they probably won't throttle folks. Where they have single T1 fed towers, they will. | |
|
| | Question??? "To provide a good experience for the majority of our customers and minimize capacity issues and degradation in network performance,..."
So how does cumulative usage degrade or cause capacity issues? I can see if a lot of users are sitting there all day everyday using the connection it could cause issues at that time but unless there is some "container" that houses bandwidth (and only refills once a month) caps like this still dont make sense to me. | |
|
| iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Question??? If you use more than 5GB chances are that you're a heavy user of the network compared with everyone else and thus will be the first to be throttled if there's not enough capacity. T-Mobile reserves the right to throttle folks...they may not actually do it in many instances. | |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Available with no contract? Would be pretty cool to pick up a Rocket stick (full price, meh, but whatever) then use the $40-per-month 5GB plan whenever needed, then downgrade or shut off the service when not needed.
Anyone know whether this is possibl? Does TMo offer non-contract data? | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
| | Meh This is nothing to get excited about. Competition? Bleh.
1. It's still 5GB. Everybody has been capping on 5GB for years. In the age of smartphones, tablets, HD streaming, web2.0, web apps, and the advent of 4G, this is just plain ridiculous. Why not pushing it up to, let's say, 50GB?
2. T-Mobile's 3G coverage is worse than AT&T. I mean how many people actually depend on T-Mobile for their mobile data? Everybody that I know picked Verizon when they want mobile data. | |
|
| | | Re: Meh Because the cellular network is a limited resource, 50GB is too much for most and too much for them to be profitable. | |
|
| | | | Re: Meh That excuse makes sense years ago, when 3G just getting started. How long have the 5GB cap is in place? This is 2010. Are you saying all this time T-Mobile has never been profitable, thus need to put the 5GB cap for life? BTW, my rant is applicable for all the wireless carriers. | |
|
| | | tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
| Re: Meh 1. Years ago, there were a lot less users.
2. UMTS 3g still is as spectrally efficient as it was years ago when the first networks were set up. The spec hasn't changed. Neither has physics.
3. HSPA+ is more spectrally efficient, but it's only available in a couple cities. Until it's rolled out nationwide, they're not going to even think about raising caps.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Meh said by tiger72:1. Years ago, there were a lot less users. 2. UMTS 3g still is as spectrally efficient as it was years ago when the first networks were set up. The spec hasn't changed. Neither has physics. 3. HSPA+ is more spectrally efficient, but it's only available in a couple cities. Until it's rolled out nationwide, they're not going to even think about raising caps. So what has allowed European companies to provide much larger caps (in fact they also sell uncapped plans) for years and years? Spectrum only becomes an issue when cell towers are deployed in limited numbers. If not for a lack of competition, the wireless companies would be much more aggressive in deploying towers or microcells. | |
|
| | | | | tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
1 edit | Re: Meh said by sonicmerlin:said by tiger72:1. Years ago, there were a lot less users. 2. UMTS 3g still is as spectrally efficient as it was years ago when the first networks were set up. The spec hasn't changed. Neither has physics. 3. HSPA+ is more spectrally efficient, but it's only available in a couple cities. Until it's rolled out nationwide, they're not going to even think about raising caps. So what has allowed European companies to provide much larger caps (in fact they also sell uncapped plans) for years and years? Again, there were far less users. My first unlimited t-mobile data plan (tzones) was $2.99 for unlimited internet access. The prices were low to try to hook people into wanting data. And actual data use was measured in megabytes - not gigs.
Now the same plan runs $20/mo. Now that people really want data (and are using a lot more), they've raised prices. Business 101.
Spectrum only becomes an issue when cell towers are deployed in limited numbers. If not for a lack of competition, the wireless companies would be much more aggressive in deploying towers or microcells.
That's also incorrect. There are dozens of factors that come into play when re-using spectrum. First of all, there's the overall amount of it. Some companies only have 10mhz in some areas to work with, while others have 40mhz. The more spectrum you have, the more capacity you have. But you can't just add more towers all over the place. You have to deal with municipal zoning. You have to deal with cell breathing. You have to deal with getting high grade backhauls to all of those sites. You have to invest in even more equipment.
Some companies are simply doing the math: It makes more sense to keep caps low to ensure that users don't drop their home connections for wireless connections just yet. The extra bandwidth and spectrum necessary to compete with cable and dsl in a cell is apparently not worth the possible customer additions of users who would pay to replace their fixed broadband with wireless.
I know for myself that if any 3.5g+ operator (ie 6mbps+) had a 50GB+ cap, i'd drop my DSL in an instant.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
 lordfly
join:2000-10-12
Homestead, FL | Rollover Kbs? We have rollover minutes, why not rollover kbs? | |
|
| slckusrPremium
join:2003-03-17
Maumee, OH
kudos:1 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Rollover Kbs? said by lordfly:We have rollover minutes, why not rollover kbs? Sign up now for 3gb monthly plan with rollover m/b. a much better value at 69.99 | |
|
| | lordfly
join:2000-10-12
Homestead, FL Reviews:
·SkyNet360
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Rollover Kbs? said by slckusr:said by lordfly:We have rollover minutes, why not rollover kbs? Sign up now for 3gb monthly plan with rollover m/b. a much better value at 69.99 Yeah, you are right. We are screwed no matter what. lol | |
|
| | Sprint's has a better deal if you are in a 4G area If you currently live in a Clear market (or future launch market), $60mo buys multiple device access to unlimited 4G w/ a 5GB 3G cap with Sprint. | |
|
| | | Re: Sprint's has a better deal if you are in a 4G area I live in Portland and I have inconsistent 4G speeds and indoor coverage is bad.
I ditched the 4G Clear service. Sprint's 3G is okay here in the Metro area. Everything outside the city is 1x roaming if you're lucky. | |
|
| |
1 edit | Re: Sprint's has a better deal if you are in a 4G area I've read so much good stuff about WiMAX.. LOL not. Seriously, once 3G+ is live in more cities, it will more than satisfy the masses. WiMAX is pathetic here too.. T-Mobile's 3G network has way more coverage and they have 3G sprinkled on every other tower in lots of areas.. they will be fixing 3G coverage soon so it totally overlays the 2G network but I'm just making a point; WiMAX isn't worth mentioning unless you need unlimited at off peak hours.. because lets face it, WiMAX slows to a crawl during certain hours. | |
|
Jazdi
join:2009-07-06
Ottawa, ON | this plan sounds familiar... Seems like T-Mobile is taking pricing inspiration from their AWS cousin to the north, Wind Mobile. | |
|
cairo
join:2006-03-07
Camden, NY | I'll try it I wanted Cricket Syracuse because it will work with VOIP but there is no reception here so I'm trying T-Mobile. It seems as the stick or software is unstable at times but that's not the network.
Verizon called and tried to get me back. When I told her I was sick of their price gouging ($60 v $40 +overages of up to $350/mo), she gasped when I told her T-Mobile has no overages. Then she tried to sell me a phone-no thanks.
I need to get an external antenna because their 1.7 GHZ signal needs all the help it can get but that's no biggie.
Their salesman said their towers will be fiber soon so we'll see about the VOIP when they wire them.
The jury is still out but one thing is for sure---FINALLY we're seeing a glimpse of competition. For this I tip my hat to T-Mobile. | |
|
|
|
