Slashdot Mirror

People have never heard of ZTE and Huawei? http://www.mycricket.com/cell-phones/by/zte http://www.mycricket.com/sitesearch?site=all+mycricket.com&q=Huawei+ Cricket sells them both in the US.

People have never heard of ZTE and Huawei? http://www.mycricket.com/cell-phones/by/zte http://www.mycricket.com/sitesearch?site=all+mycricket.com&q=Huawei+ Cricket sells them both in the US.

There are a few smaller carriers that lease AT&T's GSM network.
Boost (They seem to cater to people with bad credit)
Cricket($55 unlimited everything but data is throttled after 2.5GB.)
Consumer Cellular(Great if you just make phone calls, data costs an arm and a leg)

That's the sound of crickets.

http://www.mycricket.com/cell-phone-plans#smartphone-plans
$55 a month, unlimited. Yes, truphone is raping you if you use them as an USian.

If you have an unlocked iPhone (which you would to use truphone) Why wouldn't you just buy a local SIM when traveling?

I am really surprised nobody so far has mentioned Cricket. They have unlimited plans, cover all 50 states, and NO CONTRACT. You pay month-to-month.

I used Cricket for several years and they were probably the least-hassle mobile phone company I ever dealt with. The only reason I switched away from them is that I needed data and at the time (this was about 5 years ago or so) they didn't have it.

Check them out.

But with the least of four evils (T-Mobile USA) soon to be bought by arguably the greatest of them (AT&T), what do you recommend that smartphone customers who value their freedom do?

What? Four evils? There are other (uhmm) evils out there!

If price is your gig, consider MetroPCS, which happily supports Android phones for just $45/month. Data network is pretty slow, so don't use it for loads of youtube, it's not going to happen. But it's great for email, messaging, iTune remote radio, and navigation.

Metro not available in your area? Well, consider Cricket Wireless. Sporting somewhat better coverage than Metro PCS and somewhat higher prices, they too happily support Android, showing a popular LG Optimus on the home page. (The same phone my wife has; she loves it!)

I switched my family, kids and all, to MetroPCS. My monthly phone costs have dropped by more than half, and I'm not inundated with "phantom charges" which were sprouting like malignant cancers on my monthly cell bills with Verizon Wireless.

Giving dollars to the smaller carriers is a vote for consumer choice, a decision I made recently and I regret it for not a minute.

Actually there are a few smaller ones that have sprouted up recently(ish). I have no experience with them but their prices seem more reasonable.

http://www.boostmobile.com/
http://www.mycricket.com/

>>>It's Cricket, fuck no there's no data plan. It's meant to be a portable local phone

http://www.mycricket.com/broadband $40 a month for 5 gigabytes of high speed, and dialup speed after you hit that limit

most phone users do not really "own" they phones during the initial 2 years

You do own the phone (physically), but in consideration for the discount you got on it, the phone company pwns joo for a $350 early termination fee if you stop sending them their monthly ransom on the service contract. The phone is still yours to do with as you please.

Mobile phone carriers have just tried to give you the impression that you don't own the phone, by making the phone you own useless for doing anything other than connecting to their network and buying ringtones on their web portal that cost more than the full song download.

They do this through technical hindrance such as unique protocols (cdma vs GSM), unique frequencies (3G on 1900MHz vs 2100MHz), carrier SIM lock (or no sim at all), or vendor-specific firmware (see CDMA phones), auto-jamming your phone with their service books and restriction software (i.e. put the carrier's SIM card into the unlocked Blackberry you bought outright [don't even need to connect to their network] and your phone's wi-fi & GPS mapping software is disabled so they can sell it back to you for $10-$30/mo), and by black-listing the device's IMEI if they didn't like how you left their service.

As it is, verizon is no longer the absolute leader. Sprint, ATT, even some of the small guys like boost and cricket have competitive products. All verizon can say is they have the premium product, and use the higher fees to maintain the premium product.

Boost: Owned by Sprint
In addition, Boost Mobile, Sprint's prepaid business, is being refocused to compete aggressively for customers impacted by the current economic environment with a lower per-minute rate and other attractive pricing options.

Cricket: Partnered with Verizon
"Inter-carrier agreements such as that between Cricket and Verizon Wireless are necessary for seamless picture messaging interoperability across the country," said Jim Straight, vice president of wireless Internet and multimedia for Verizon Wireless.

No termination fees:

• Cricket
• PagePlus - uses the entire Verizon network unencumbered
• Boost Mobile (Sprint/Nextel network, I think)
• T-Mobile Prepaid @10c a minute
• etc., etc., etc.

Each has its pros and cons. There are choices out there if you try a little.

It reminds me of people complaining that B of A cranked up their credit card but, for some reason, won't check a local bank or credit union.

Sometimes, it's just easier to complain.

I love how they change the contract after you have agreed to it.

I think a lot of these anti-consumer contracts have language that says that they can change the terms of the contract. It's strange, like self-modifying code.

I use a cheap, no-contract (no more than month to month) cell phone company (http://www.virginmobile.com/). Sure it comes with a bit of a lame phone (target market is teenagers), but I can dump them today if I want to. I'm amazed at some of my friends who wonder why I don't get a nicer phone "for free" and sign up with one of major carriers. They complain about their crappy broken phone they can't replace (because they're under contract) or the phone bills that have hundred dollar calls from foreign countries that the company won't dismiss and threaten to send collections...

When my $20 phone finally craps out (had it for over a year now.. no problems), I think I'll try these guys: http://www.straighttalk.com/ServicePlans, relatively cheap decent phones and $45/month unlimited everything. Either that or maybe cricket (http://www.mycricket.com/).

I had Verizon once, and they were okay. I suppose if they come out with a decent phone and a $45/month for everything plan (with no contract), I'll think about going back.

One of the nice things about Virgin Mobile is that if something happens to your phone, you can be back up and running in about as much time as it takes you to buy a phone at the store. I was having a party at my house and an hour before people started showing up, I stepped on my phone and broke it. I quickly ran to a local store and had phone service in about 20 minutes; only missed 3 calls asking for directions. I now keep a spare cheapie in case something like that happens again or if an out-of-country guest needs a phone while they're visiting. I just put $20 on it for them and they're good for a while without worrying about international rates.

few years ago all phones were about the same in features and people shopped based on price and coverage. Sprint decided to bottom feed the market with it's pay cash in the store machines to cater to illegals and people who don't have bank accounts or internet access.

Is there any evidence that suggests Sprint was trying to cater to illegal residents (of the US, I assume)? First of all, note that there is a huge population of legal non-resident aliens who work in the US. Second, the areas of my city heavily populated by foriegn nationals are littered with Cricket stores; THEY are the ones who seem to be aggressively pursuing this market. Third, the core of Sprint's subscriber base for many years has been businesses. This comment seems like an inflamatory remark intended to imply that Sprint is blatantly supporting illegal activity.

VZ and AT&T helped to invest in new phones by giving money to Apple and RIM in exchange for exclusive agreements.We're now in a market cycle where people want a good phone that can do everything since coverage is about the same everywhere.Sprint and T-Mobile are screwed because they cater to bottom feeders and now they're complaining. they want the new phones without paying to develop them. AT&T paid Apple almost a billion $$$ to develop the iPhone.

Yes, AT&T and Verizon have engaged in exclusivity agreements with phone developers, as have Sprint and T-Mobile. This is not a new practice, though this comment seems to imply that it is. I'm not sure what the assertion that Sprint and T-Mobile "cater to bottom feeders" means. Does "bottom feeder" mean "a consumer who doesn't want to be locked into an expensive long-term contract?"

Sprint's answer was to fund the Pre which is still in beta. no wonder no one was allowed to see it before launch. if Sprint and T-Mobile want customers they need to help pay for a nice phone on their network with a decent release and all features working. Unlike the Pre which was a disaster. Check all the stories on BoyGeniusReport. Sprint screwed up and is now running to the government.

While AT&T and Verizon "invest in new phones", Sprint "funds" a phone "which is still in beta"? Haven't there been numerous firmware updates for the iPhone since its debut? Also, does "is still in beta" mean "is generally available and for sale on the market?" In my profession, "beta" testing refers to a test cycle that preceeds general release and sale of a product.

The strange thing about this comment is that it appears to suggest that Sprint is somehow abetting criminal activity, throws its money away by supporting new product development, releases the product before it is ready, and is demanding help from the government due to rescue it from its ineptitude. By the way, precisely what is the nature of assistance Sprint is asking from the government? I didn't see that in any of the article links.

At the same time, this comments implies that AT&T and Verizon's similar practices are okay.

It seems to me that phone exclusivity deals, price-fixing, and costly long-term consumer contracts are equally bad regardless of what company uses them. Or am I missing something here?

Yeah, this may sound like an astroturf, but it isn't. I have no connection with them, don't even use them (yet).

Cricket started out as a small company offering phone service in a few areas, including mine. They were offering all-you-can-eat no-contract service, cheap, but you had to buy your own phone (or reflash another compatible one). They've done very well since, with their service expanding to most major markets.

At the time I signed up for my last contract, their service was a little iffy, with "network busy" issues; it's improved since then. I'm strongly considering switching to them when my contract is up.

I do believe that if the other companies out there don't switch to a similar business model, Cricket is going to eat their lunch.

Cricket Wireless is similar, established, and without the pyramid deal. Their service is splotchy at best outside of urban areas. But $40 for unlimited wireless via USB, or $35 for unlimited long distance and text. My understanding is they buy obsolete towers from other companies, and work on older networks with older phones. Still, $35 unlimited everything beats the hell out of the fully nationwide providers, if you tend not to travel across rural areas.

I love the iPhone. It's a beautiful and functional work of art. It does everything I want a webpad to do, especially now that peripherals are going to be possible. It's incredible in every way. I drool over the thought of the iPhone 3GS.

I won't pay $90/month for the privilege of having it not turn into a brick. I won't even pay $60/month. I use about 5 minutes of talk time every month, burn through 150 texts per month and might use some data on the go, but typically would be close to a WiFi hotspot if I didn't have a computer with me. If it weren't for the texts, an iPod Touch would be exactly what I want. As is, it seems as though Apple wants me to have my cell phone for texting and emergency calls and an iPod Touch for geeking out. Maybe that's fine, but I already have the phone -- the Touch will wait.

If I could buy an iPhone outright, unsubsidized, and then go to any carrier I wanted, who would then offer a "$0.40/minute voice, 200 texts, unlimited data" for $40/month, I'd do it. Strangely, Cricket has the data for 3G for $40/month, then I'd have to pick up the 200 texts for maybe $5/month. So, I'm almost there. But... AT&T wants to charge me more than twice that. No deal. Of course, Cricket would love to set me up with unlimited voice, long distance and texting for $40/month, which would knock $5 off the data plan, putting it at $85 for what AT&T would like $150 for an iPhone plan with those features.

I'm not unreasonable. I understand that AT&T needs to make some money here, but I don't want much service. Their lowest plan has 5000 night & weekend minutes -- 4999 more than I'd use -- and 450 anytime minutes. Just find a way to cut all the fat out and they'll get my money. Nickeling and diming for MMS (whatever that is, I don't even care) or tethering (I can't imagine that's more than a few people) isn't going to win a lot of customers and just scares away people like me.

I love the iPhone. It's a beautiful and functional work of art. It does everything I want a webpad to do, especially now that peripherals are going to be possible. It's incredible in every way. I drool over the thought of the iPhone 3GS.

I won't pay $90/month for the privilege of having it not turn into a brick. I won't even pay $60/month. I use about 5 minutes of talk time every month, burn through 150 texts per month and might use some data on the go, but typically would be close to a WiFi hotspot if I didn't have a computer with me. If it weren't for the texts, an iPod Touch would be exactly what I want. As is, it seems as though Apple wants me to have my cell phone for texting and emergency calls and an iPod Touch for geeking out. Maybe that's fine, but I already have the phone -- the Touch will wait.

If I could buy an iPhone outright, unsubsidized, and then go to any carrier I wanted, who would then offer a "$0.40/minute voice, 200 texts, unlimited data" for $40/month, I'd do it. Strangely, Cricket has the data for 3G for $40/month, then I'd have to pick up the 200 texts for maybe $5/month. So, I'm almost there. But... AT&T wants to charge me more than twice that. No deal. Of course, Cricket would love to set me up with unlimited voice, long distance and texting for $40/month, which would knock $5 off the data plan, putting it at $85 for what AT&T would like $150 for an iPhone plan with those features.

I'm not unreasonable. I understand that AT&T needs to make some money here, but I don't want much service. Their lowest plan has 5000 night & weekend minutes -- 4999 more than I'd use -- and 450 anytime minutes. Just find a way to cut all the fat out and they'll get my money. Nickeling and diming for MMS (whatever that is, I don't even care) or tethering (I can't imagine that's more than a few people) isn't going to win a lot of customers and just scares away people like me.

Cricket Broadband FAQ:
You cannot use the service:
* As a router or web server
* To initiate VOIP conversations
* As a web hosting or email service

No one has opted to match thier $100/mo "unlimited voice/data/text" plan

No, you're just not looking around. Cricket has that beat by quite a margin. If all you want is unlimited voice/data/text then they can give you that for about $85. Granted, it's on two plans; one for voice/text($45) and one for data($40).

*This offer not available in all areas, taxes and fees may apply, if it's not micromachines it's not the real thing, yadda, yadda, yadda.

MetroPCS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetroPCS / http://www.metropcs.com/
Cricket: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_Communications / http://www.mycricket.com/

You won't get free nationwide roaming with these providers, but for the vast majority of people, this isn't a deal-breaker.

Lucky for people that don't want to sign a contract for cell phone service, there are companies that offer celluar service cheaper with no contract.

http://www.mycricket.com/

It's funny that you say "green" because that is actually the corporate color of the company that has been providing me with cell phone service for the past 3 years: Cricket.

Unlimited airtime and unlimited text messaging for $52.50 including tax. That's been my price the entire time. Awesome, awesome company and service.

So there is competition, but it is tough to convince people to become a customer of your scrappy young upstart when "coverage" and "bars" are so important. People seem to worry that the service will be terrible. The reality of it is that I get great reception everywhere that I go and when I travel I get to Roam on Verizon's network for a really reasonable rate (I have thirty minutes of roaming airtime included with my plan and I can still send unlimited text messages!).

MetroPCS is another company who, like Cricket, also provides unlimited plans. If you have the means, and live within an area where they offer service, I cannot recommend them enough. It is so nice to not have to worry about overages or petty fees.

How about $45?

http://www.metropcs.com/
http://www.mycricket.com/
http://www.xphilez.com/
http://www.moddz.com/

Enjoy,

FifthE1ement

Cricket or MetroPCS seem like they might be decent alternatives if they offer service in your area.

For those areas lucky enough to have Cricket Wireless, they're a nice hybrid between prepaid and regular telephone service. Flat rate. Here are teir plans.

$40/month gets you unlimited calling minutes, unlimited US long distance, unlimited text/picture/IM.

The "high end package" of $60/month gets you all that, plus use of all Cricket coverage areas, voice mail, caller id, call waiting, 3-way calling, 200 nationwide roaming minutes per month. (After you hit your 200 minutes, roaming stops working unless you pay up for some more roaming minutes for that month.)

If I had kids, I'd get them Cricket service in a heartbeat.

Cricket Wireless is doing this in many areas now, and on the cheap. Unlimited everything for $50/month and no contract. Why do the "big boys" think they need to charge hundreds of dollars for similar service?

What is wrong with Cingular? I've always been with Sprint...been happy with them, but, I've been asking friends that have Cingular, and they've been quite happy with it. So far, most all I've asked only use it for voice...I use my Sprint phone as a modem for occasional laptop usage...or for sending pics, picture mail/txt (free vs pay for SMS), or some web browsing when bored in the bar waiting for friends...and the internet connectivity is great. But, I've not met anyone that is sour on Cingular...can you or anyone else tell me what is worst on their system than say..SprintPCS?

Well, there's their pricing.

Compared to a provider with a sub-$50 all-you-can-eat no-lockin month-to-month plan such as Cricket or MetroPCS, Cricket's pricing is bloody awful: The risk of breaching a usage cap and needing to pay per text message is enough to stop me from using the feature altogether. A similar deal goes for data plans, and Cingular's unlimited data plans are considerably more expensive than Sprint's.

Also, this multi-year contract BS is... well, BS. Forcing people to sign onto a long-term contract to buy a phone locked to the vendor's service (or extend said contract in order to change plan options) is absolutely not condusive to consumer choice. That said, I think many of my criticisms (save the data plan pricing) probably apply to Sprint as well.

There's a scarcity here - you get an assigned slot/frequency band to use when you call, so they can't really go to flat rate. Then again...how does Cricket do it?

First cell company to unlimited minutes for $50 a month wins my cash vote.

DSL is available without telephone service.

That's actually relative. If you call my cell when I'm roaming (or if it were another provider and I was out of my plans' minutes), I pay to receive the call. If I have ISDN BRI circuits, I have to pay per minute charges for phone calls in or out (including voice). Then there are things like 800 numbers that allow the caller to not pay and the receiving party agrees to pay any toll/LD charges.

But the point here is that these are all based on established contractual agreements. AT&T is trying to change the rules. Fine, let them change the rules and everyone will switch.

Gcom pays their upstream to get to the "cloud," as does Ucom. It's up to their providers to keep their peering agreements in place and route the traffic. If they won't their customers will leave. If a peer advertises a route to another peer, they are bound to route that traffic as efficiently as possible, not slow it down. If a peer doesn't want to route traffic, then don't advertise the prefixes to their downstream peers.

Guess what happens when you advertise less prefixes? You get less traffic. At some point, whoever has less traffic through their cloud pays their peers who have more traffic.

If AT&T starts to mess with content people want to access, people will leave AT&T. Or, customers may sue AT&T for messing with their content which AT&T has agreed to provide them access to. Either way, AT&T will lose in the end - with our without net neutrality.

I ditched SBC when they said they could get me ADSL at a property I was moving to, and then after I moved in and couldn't get it to train up, said my order had been cancelled due to being beyond the length limits - but the never bothered to call me and their policy is to inform the customer when they call in saying it won't work. Guess who I stopped doing business with? I'll go with Vonage, etc. before I'll ever do personal business with SBC/AT&T again. I've 3 other different high-speed internet providers (Fire2Wire, a local 802.11b provider, ClearW1re some other new wireless provider, and Comcast cablemodem). The only people this will hurt are the folks without another choice - but guess what, another choice will pop up if there are enough peeved customers.

I ditched Cingular for the same reason. To get a new "free" phone or make any changes to my plan, I have to agree to a two year contract with less minutes, more money, and moving free evening to 7, 8, or 9pm instead of my existing 6pm. Thanks, but no thanks. I switched to a local cell provider for unlimited minutes, all the time (Cricket), one flat rate, period - oh, and unlimited text and picture messages too - and no monthly contract.

Choice rocks, and it keeps businesses in check. The government just needs to make sure no monopoly can lock out choice, and the market will decide.

I have an unlimited minute plan with Cricket for $35/month.
I rarely call outside the state I live in, so I don't pay for long-distance on my phone. $5 extra give unlimited US calling. a few of my friends have the same plan and we laugh when we hear people complain about minutes or getting charged extra fees. our phones basically work like land line phones, and I know exatly what my bill will be every month.

since I started using Cricket over 5 years ago I havn't paid a cent more than what I agreed to pay every month, and havn't had any problems at all. I will never go back to Sprint or AT&T, or get another limited minute plan ever.

When will the wireless networks give us unlimited plans as an option... that's what I want to know.

Cricket Communications currently does offer unlimited local and incoming calls for under $40 per month.

Too bad their coverage areas are so sparse.

LK

Do they have to own a cricket phone? Cricket communications

In Phoenix,AZ Cricket offers unlimited local service for $29.99 Its only about $10 more than a land line. I know a lot of low income people who have this cell service and no land line. Since its prepay there are no credit checks and its actually a lot easier to get than a land line from qwest and the basic phone is free after a rebate.

https://www.mycricket.com/