yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[General Topics] :
Your own argument is used against you. Those big three carriers don't necessarily have to have good service. Just because your in a coverage area. I can tell you at&t sucks in the big city drops calls everywhere. There is a reason why there is a never ending joke about having no services in the most populated of areas but they still show you bars like you have service.There hspa+ is also slower than tmobile hspa+. At&t also raise the prices of plans when the t-mobile deal failed to fall through. Sprint 3g and wimax are slow as hell almost unusable. Verizon had a lot of outages in the past year.

If you like the big three then that's good for you. I like t-mobile they give me coverage in all the areas I go to and are cheaper than the big three. But i don't take up for carriers. Even tmobile is just as bad as the other three. When at&t starting throttling users with unlimited data Which was ridiculous because it wasn't in the terms of service then. Sprint will practically drop you off contract if you use to much data or throttle you but they advertise unlimted.Sprint 3g is also unusable slower than edge and wimax sucks. Verizon makes you pay overages which isn't hard to go over with lte speeds if their lte isn't having an outage. Sprint and verizon are cdma phones and cdma sucks in a big city.

T-mobile throttles you but you know they will its in big bold fine print all over the contract and commercials they advertise. Customer service went down the drain over the years not making it back up I haven't had any problems with them. I could go to the other big 3 but guess what they suck for me compared to tmobile. Why would I pay more to the big three when i know ill get worst service.
[General Topics] Aerocaptain:
T-Mobile isn't a bad carrier. They usually have descent coverage around most metropolitan cities. I have to speak in terms of general services throughout the US in order for the posts to cover the most amount of people. It would be impossible to list every carriers good and bad cities. As a general rule of thumb, Verizon, At&t and Sprint have the best coverage with T-Mobile coming up behind them.

For specific cases such as yours, the most important factor in selecting a carrier is service. You've illustrated my point perfectly. It doesnt matter how much you pay, if you can't get reception or do what you want on your own device (data use limits stated earlier), the service is useless.

Sent from CDMA V6 SC GNexus w/Liquid & Franco.kernel
[General Topics] sreza:
Nope, TOS really matters. Check this out:

http://www.slashgear.com/att-offers-quiet-settlement-for-iphone-data-throttling-lawsuit-13218204/
[General Topics] thebobp:
There are exceptional cases, true. But that guy is in the news precisely because he's the only one who bothered to go all the way to court (and that after everyone got a long period of ****ty throttling).

If a prepaid carrier was excessively throttling, its users would just leave. You wouldn't have to wait for the slow arm of the law or question yourself due to being locked-in.

sent from my Terran Command Center.
[General Topics] :
Good example of what we are talking about herehttp://www.droid-life.com/2012/04/17/infographic-the-att-and-verizon-duopoly/

Even reddit users talk about how much they pay http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/sffpl/the_att_and_verizon_duopoly_why_your_cell_phone/
[General Topics] Aerocaptain:
First, yes. Verizon and AT&T are absolutely a duopoly. I have no doubt about that. Unfortunately FCC regulation has failed in making mobile communications more competitive. But unlike many other countries, the US still has many options when choosing a mobile carrier.

Second, the facts listed are bias and some are inaccurate. Verizon does have a data package smaller than 2GB for $30. They have a 250MB package for $20. However, i would venture to say most facts listed are accurate.

Third, don't think that prepay users are not contributing to the duopolies profits. Subcarriers rent THEIR towers and services which contribute to those profits.

Fourth, without Verizon and AT&T, there wouldn't be the mobile infrastructure that exists today. Its simply too expensive to build, maintain and promote the development of new innovation.

Once again, there is a duopoly, and the profits gained are shameful. But when you take in account the things listed in my fourth comment, its not as bad. No where near the oil companies....but I digress.

To add fuel to the fire, here are the estimated profit margins for the big 3 that I recall reading about a couple months back.

Verizon 43-46%

At&t 28%

Sprint 9%

When you consider these big spectrum purchases, no wonder they need to charge as much as they do......of course they can always drop prices 10-20% but its the way of the world I suppose. It is a business. Luckily the oil industries inelasticity of demand has not caught up to the telecommunications industry.

Sent from CDMA V6 SC GNexus w/Liquid & Franco.kernel
[General Topics] thebobp:
This is precisely the wrong way to give advice. If a metropolitan person can get decent coverage for much cheaper, why aren't you even mentioning that as a possible option? Why have you, instead, categorically cut them out like they don't even exist?
[General Topics] Aerocaptain:
T-Mobile is an interesting exception to what we have been talking about. More than anyone else, its a contract carrier and its a prepay carrier. I have been concentrating on near absolute contract carriers and near absolute prepay carriers. T-Mobile splits both worlds. In my experience, they usually fall about 20-30% lower in price plans than the bigger carriers/20-30% higher price for prepay users and are a good alternative (an in between) to the higher priced higher service carriers and the lower priced lower service prepay subcarriers. As long as the regionalized coverage area meets an individuals needs.

Edit: I wasn't cutting metropolitan cities out of my posts. Usually if At&t does not cover a certain city very well (NY most notably), Verizon picks up the slack. And vice versa. As far as I know, T-Mobile is not the service leader in any major metropolitan city. They are simply too small to compete on the Verizon and AT&T level in that area.

Sent from CDMA V6 SC GNexus w/Liquid & Franco.kernel
[General Topics] :
Tmobile has wifi calling if you have a device covers areas if you have wifi now wifi is widely available in most areas unless your out some where with no access but even cars have internet now. Somewhere even in the suburbs you will probably find a wifi connection. This doesn't count towards your minutes. Sprint is worse by far picking up a call in my house sounds staticly and like its about to drop.
[General Topics] thebobp:
Yes you were; literally all your analyses centered on "the big three".

This most recent global analysis is useless from the perspective of the users. If AT&T or Verizon doesn't cover a city very well, the prospective user would want advice like "check which one does", rather than just pretending "the big three" are categorically worth it.

Similarly, if T-Mobile provides a much cheaper option in their city (heck, decent prepaid rates as well, yet they weren't at all part of your prepaid analyses earlier), you'd think the user would want to know about that as well.

The correct observation would then be "one has to check coverage vs price for several carriers", not "anything other than the big three is not even worth mentioning".
[General Topics] Aerocaptain:
I've heard that about Sprint. Seeing their profit margin, I can see why they are constantly placed a distant third. They simply don't have the capital to compete any better. From what I was reading, they are going into hawk just to start building their 4G infrastructure. Sooner or later they may go along the same way as T-Mobile and beg to be absorbed into another carrier. Unfortunately they are CDMA and Verizon would be the likely buyer......but I don't think the FCC would allow that level of competitive disruption.

Sent from CDMA V6 SC GNexus w/Liquid & Franco.kernel
[General Topics] Aerocaptain:
Please note the post above yours for the reasons why I did not throw T-Mobile in the mix.

Sent from CDMA V6 SC GNexus w/Liquid & Franco.kernel
[General Topics] :
More less the U.S.A leader of tmobile didn't want to sell it. But the parent company Deutsche Telekom wanted to. Where i live all carriers have service and good coverage they say. But truth is that is not true. I started with verizon , then at&t, then sprint, they were all horrible compared to t-mobile note i paid the etf for all three. Been on T-mobile for a couple of years. Sprint could be destroyed before tmobile but since tmobile has a parent company Deutsche Telekom they can add funds to invest in.
[General Topics] Aerocaptain:
Pssh, What else would you expect from a company named after a feminine odor product. :D

Sent from CDMA V6 SC GNexus w/Liquid & Franco.kernel
[General Topics] thebobp:
That post makes even less sense from the perspective of the user (which is, in the end, what matters here).

Apparently you didn't include T-mobile because "it's not #1 in any city", but you do include AT&T and Verizon because they're #1 in some cities. The individual user doesn't care who's #1 in how many cities. They just want the costs and benefits for their own cities.

Edit: think about it: if a carrier was #2 for $0.01/month in every single city, your filtering criteria would simply ignore it. Yet, just like T-Mobile, this carrier would be a very relevant cheap option for the user.

Edit 2: As Hayek said in that rap: "too much aggregation.. ignores human action, and motivation." LOL!
[General Topics] Aerocaptain:
When I insinuate #1, I'm not looking at shear users as much as coverage area. The most important factor when considering which carrier to choose. (Unless your prepay, then its price. Haha I kid......somewhat anyway)

OK, to reiterate for the people in the back. T-Mobile is both contract and prepay. Much more split than any other company.

I can't classify them as 1 or the other for that reason (although they probably tilt toward the contract side, to the detriment of prepay users). On top of that, their coverage area across the US is smaller than the big 3. They primarily deal with metropolitan areas and the underlying suburbs and have sparser coverage in between those regions. For simplicity, I'd rather not dive into the muddy waters that is T-Mobile. Like i mentioned earlier, its easier to understand contract vs prepay when dealing closer to absolute prepay company vs absolute contract company. The arguments for their prepay would match the arguments for contract, effectively cancelling them out. We are assessing prepay vs contract as a whole. Not just the prepay and contracts of a single company, much less from a company that is widely considered the fourth largest wireless carrier in the country in terms of both customers and coverage area. That would be pointless since that entails just one of many options and I don't think either prepay or contract would triumph in that minority situation.

Sent from CDMA V6 SC GNexus w/Liquid & Franco.kernel
[General Topics] Aerocaptain:
Why would I dig deeper into the 4th best option in terms of service throughout the country? People are smart enough to figure out who has the best coverage vs price in their area. Sometimes it may be Verizon, sometimes AT&T, sometimes sprint, sometimes T-Mobile, or sometimes with another less known carrier.

I think we're moving sideways. Let's remain on topic with contract vs prepay. Posts are getting a little nitpicky and not relevant to the thread. Constant talk on semantics will only widen the gap between the relevant information on this thread.

Sent from CDMA V6 SC GNexus w/Liquid & Franco.kernel
[General Topics] penguinfishies:
I'm wondering why the only prices people are bringing up are the "subsidized 200 dollar phones" when comparing to the full 600-650 asking price for a non-subsidized phone. There are sales all the time and if people have to get hooked in by the latest and greatest with preorders before it even comes out, might the fault lie in the consumer?

The newest phones are always ~200 dollars on contract when first released, then relatively easily drop 50-100 dollars off after a month or two. I got my HTC Vivid for a penny off of Amazon's thanksgiving sale, with the contract fee waived and I pay 63.00 a month as part of a family plan for ATT. I don't make many calls but still have unlimited text and 2 gb of data included.

Back when I was with t-mobile, me and three other friends opted for a 4 person family plan and it came up to around 30 a month for 1000 minutes and unlimited text but man was the reception garbage when I lived...

I'm paying 63.00 x 24 = 1512 over the course of 2 years.... subtracting the 600 dollar asking price of a non subsidized HTC vivid, I'm paying 38 dollars per month for enough minutes so I don't have to worry, unlimited text and 2 gb of data for one of the top phones at the time and also got lucky with the first phone officially receiving an official ICS upgrade.

There are family plans and there are alternatives to paying the 200 dollar subsidized fees which I don't think anyone's brought up. Amazon has their any phone for a penny sale every thanksgiving, luckily with no tax in my state yet :).

If you can't justify having data/text added onto your plan or spending so much on a monthly phone bill, this is what I do for my mom and dad who are technologically incapable and don't need those add ons. T-mobile has prepaid plans where you can buy a 30 dollar dumbphone that isn't subsidized, 100 dollar prepaid card that will last you an entire year! That's only....9 dollars a month and its 10 cents deducted from that prepaid card per minute, which is a lot cheaper than these 2 yr contracts.
[General Topics] :
There is also a $30 walmart plan which gives 100 minutes 5 gigs data and unlimted text. Your on a nice grandfathered plan. The new plans for new customers are not so friendly. If you switch phones alot. Then it is not worth it to stay on contract . You travel alot internationally then no reason to stay on contract. New plans are not really friendly towards new customers.
[General Topics] galaxys:
Subsidized sux's compared to unlocked ownership & freedom!
[General Topics] sitizenx:
A lot of people don't pay the advertised price. There are also things like family plans. We also have bundling with broadband and TV. The other thing you have to keep in mind is from 9pm till 6 or 7am calling to any land line number is deducted from an extra 5,000 minutes they give you in your package over here. The entire weekend comes out of that allotment as well. And that allotment is on top of your 450 baseline minutes.

Also calling to all mobiles is free any time of day. And they let you shop a la carte. So say you only want to chat on the phone. They will quote you a price of $39.99. Well I don't pay that. Through a work discount program I pay 25% less so $30. So are you telling me there is a plan in the UK with a large carrier that gives you 450 any time minutes, 5000 night/weekend minutes, and unlimited calling to any mobile number for £18.62? Also my carrier has free wifi hotspots as well. We also have LTE so there is becoming less and less of a need for wifi hotspots in major metropolitan areas. Well my carrier is a little behind on the LTE coverage but they are ramping up... sorta.

Yes if you want unlimited texting you have to pay $20/month. It's our own stupidity that results in that. They are already saying call any mobile you wish for free and we are saying, no, I would rather pay $20/month to send 5 garbled text messages instead of simply making a free two minute phone call.

No one puts a gun to anyone's head and forces them to have an $80 telecom bill. If you want to pay $30 a month and have unlimited calling to your friends and family you can. The regulators don't need to get involved.

What I hate is how they FORCE you to get a data plan if you have a smartphone. That should be regulated. I also wish they had a cheaper limited text messaging plan. If they did I would jump on that.

Or free *cough* Lumia 900 *cough* I hear you on that though. It makes no sense to rush out and drop $200 on a phone. You wait for the stampede to die down and you easily save 50-100 just for chilling for a couple of months.

That's considered a marriage where I come from.

Yeah that pretty much blows. AT&T and Verizon have pretty solid networks coast to coast. Yes in some towns one network or the other has some issues but I jumped ship from a smaller carrier and joined the evil empire because of coverage issues in a couple of places. Plus if I had a plan that had gigs of data I would want to stream.... assuming LTE is available. Unlimited data with no streaming on a 3G network is garbage. I would much rather pay more and be able to stream on an LTE network and only have 3 gigs prepaid.

Would NOT be allowed down here in the land of the "free." The duopoly has decreed that even if you buy your own smartphone in Europe at full price, bring it home, and pop your SIM card into it they will automatically start charging you for data whether you ever use it or not. I'm being dead serious. How messed up is that? Where is Congress?!
[General Topics] AndroidChat:
I'm really surprised Americas tariff's are so steep.....I thought us in the UK had it bad.

I just recently began buying my phones outright and have a SIM only plan from GiffGaff (owned by o2/telefonica uk) for £10 per month giving me unlimited internet, texts and 250 minutes. More than enough!
[General Topics] xaccers:
Having a quick look around at SIM only deals I found:

O2 Unlimited texts/calls, 1GB data £26

Three 5000 texts, 2000 minutes, unlimited data, 5000 3to3 minutes (rolling 1 month contract) £25

T-Mobile everything unlimited £31

Most plans no longer dictate what times you can use your free minutes, or whether they can be used to call other mobiles or not, so if 600 or 900 any-time/anywhere minutes were enough then the above tariffs can be had for £10-15 depending on provider.
[General Topics] sitizenx:
The free anytime mobile to mobile minutes are NOT limited by network on my plan. You can call ANY mobile number regardless of carrier and it's free any time of day. So your 450 anytime minutes are only deducted if you call a LANDLINE between 7am and 9pm. Actually it may be between 6am and 9pm. I don't know. I don't call people at that hour and chat. Then you get 5000 nights and weekends minutes. Again if you call a landline at night or the weekend it will come out of the 5000 allotment. Calling ANY mobile does not affect your minutes.

So if you don't have text messaging or data you pay $30 and have unlimited voice minutes to ANY mobile regardless of carrier and then 5450 minutes dolled out for landlines as indicated. The anytime minutes roll over too so after a few months you defacto have unlimited calling as long as you are not a landline chatterbox during the daytime hours.

When I lived in Europe I always had a minimum of two mobile phones. I had to switch between them depending on who I called to get the best deal on minutes. There is none of that with my US carrier. One phone $30 month call any mobile we simply do not care.

From the O2 website...

That's where they screw you. Call a Virgin mobile... they start charging against your minutes.

From O2 website...

So you want unlimted texting to EVERYBODY and data? That's gonna cost you $48. Unlimited texting and 300 MB of data in the US will set you back $40. It's $8 cheaper but it's also 200 MB less data.

I would hardly call what is going on at O2 if you look at it objectively and compare apples to apples an amazingly superior deal.

You have to understand here in the US depending on your carrier they give you unlimited calling to any mobile for $30-40 from what I've seen. Another key difference is if a landline calls me from my home area code the call is free for them but my minutes get deducted. Any time you use your phone in the US the call gets charged against something. Either its a free mobile to mobile call or it is charged against your night and weekends if its a landline at night or it gets charged against your anytime minutes if its a landline. Doesn't matter who calls.

Oh, and the us rates include a free Lumia 900 tossed in just for fun. Actually you have to pay $45 worth of taxes and activation fees.

Again you must read the fine print. When my carrier says unlimited mobile to mobile they mean ANY mobile in the United States regardless of carrier.

Free texting phone, $30 month, unlimited calls to ANY mobile anywhere in the country any time of day. And of course the 450 anytime minutes for landlines and 5,000 nights and weekend minutes for land lines. Is there a comparable plan in the UK? No... unless I'm gravely mistaken, which I hope I am.
[General Topics] Dougshell:
This comment does not play into the currently standing conversation but it is OT none the less.

I believe it was Tmo CEO that expressed that he felt subsidized phones are counter productive simply because it allows the user to take for granted the value of the device they are using. Getting a 600 dollar device for 200 or less every two years then baking the lost revenue into the monthly subscription fee fools the user into thinking they are getting a deal, all while convincing the end user that their brand new galaxy nexus or iPhone 4S is truly only worth 200 dollars.

I would like to see a time where all phones are sold at cost, and the user then pays a lower monthly bill. get rid of ETF, as well as carrier locks...but maybe im still a bit foggy from yesterday...
[General Topics] sitizenx:
Well one good thing that happens is there is actually impetus to make new advanced phones. $600 is what I would pay for a laptop in a lump sum. I would be far less inclined to pay $600 for something I could easily drop in a puddle or have stolen by a pick pocket. Having a monthly payment plan where the cost is spread out over two years means there are a lot more people that will buy the devices and keep innovation going.

Frankly what I would like to see is transparency and choice. If you want a subsidized phone here is your monthly cost. If you don't want a subsidized phone we deduct this amount. To be honest with you if they made it a significant difference I would probably just get a cheap unlocked phone and say screw it to XDA and be happy living my cheap life with my little texting phone with no data.

The problem is whether you have a subsidized phone or bring your own to the likes of AT&T they don't knock anything off the price which is why it baffles me when people talk about getting an unlocked phone from somewhere else and then signing up for service. The only way that works is if you go with a second tier player and then you are giving up nationwide coverage, LTE, corporate stores everywhere, etc. AT&T has its rough patches but overall it's voice network is robust. It lags Verizon in LTE coverage but it certainly is not behind TMobile, Sprint, Boost, Virgin, et al.

People are making comparisons but they are not doing apples to apples comparisons. People are merely making trade offs and sometimes they are not good trade offs. If you only do a minimal amount of talking on your phone and a moderate amount of texting then yes a pay as you go plan with an unlocked phone can save you money in the long run. But you may have to sacrifice some coverage if you wander far from home. These are reasonable trade offs for a lot of people. But it doesn't mean they aren't trade offs.

I had a pay as you go phone for a long time. I just kept texting and calling to a minimum. No data. My costs were minimal. But if you want a more robust carefree experience going on contract is hard to beat. And as I've said before you can get just voice and get a free phone. Skip texting and data and depending on what kind of discount you can swing you can end up with a $30 phone bill. Whether you work for the federal or state government or you are a student or work for a large corporation or hospital check with carriers if they have any discounts. There are a lot of discounts out there.