Slashdot Mirror
T-Mobile Ends Contracts and Subsidies
AlphaWolf_HK writes "In what I see as a refreshing change, T-Mobile, the fourth largest carrier in the U.S., has made sweeping changes to its service, ending both phone subsidies and service contracts. Its CEO said, 'Here's the deal: If we suck this month, go somewhere else. If we're good, stay with us.' As part of that change, the new base plan will include unlimited access, including voice, text, and data. Data will be restricted to edge speeds after 500MB with no overage costs, but can be upgraded to 2.5GB for $10, or unlimited for $20. Portable Wi-Fi hotspot usage is also unrestricted for no additional cost. In addition, LTE services just went live in eight markets. As is already standard practice with T-Mobile, you are free to bring your own device. To keep customers from having to front the full cost of the phone with unsubsidized plans, they'll let people pay off phones in installments. They're also getting the iPhone 5 next month for $650."
It sounds like T-Mobile is going to be offering reasonable, attractive cell phone plans. Wow. I'm genuinely surprised that such a large carrier is moving in this direction. Good on them.
The best plans, the best prices, the best phones, and the hottest spokesgirl.
They are the weakest of the Big 4 and are going all in. I hope it works, if only to keep AT&T / Verizon honest.
However I am somewhat concerned as I have already seen too many people complain that they'd have to foot the bill for the full cost of the phone. The math would may prove to be difficult for people who are not good at it.
They could phrase it like this:
Pay Later: $199 down + $15/month for 24 months
Pay Now: $549
The down payment on the Pay Later choice would reasonably match the price with contract on other carriers.
If they really were thinking about customers, the contract would be a no-penalty cancel-anytime-you-want contract that would lock you in for a specific price for a non-trivial amount of time.
I'm skeptical and will stick with AT&T out of laziness for a while. Prove me wrong T-Mobile and I'll switch. But even though cellular has been one-sided customer-screwing contracts since the inception of the service - contracts can actually protect _both_ parties if you do them right. No contract == No guarantee.
I second that. Also can someone find the asshat that is posting this shit and BREAK HIS FUCKING LEGS?
Or, y'know, you could chill the fuck out and ignore him. I browse at 0 all the time (with ACs like me down to -1 by default), and I wouldn't have even seen any trace of this thread if you didn't open your goddamned mouth. Now, thanks to you, there's a post on this thread that started at 1 and that some asshole moderator actually modded UP to 2, leaving an abbreviated message link that points everyone to the damn thread. So yeah. Way to fucking go, dipshit.
Let's check out the fine print (is unlimited data really unlimited? etc., etc.) but if T-Mobile is honestly offering unlimited calls, data, tethering, and text without a contract then NOW you can vote with your dollars and switch. If you miss this opportunity to support them on this and send a real message to the other carriers, then you have no right to complain about the state of cell phone service in the US.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
I hope the FTC takes note of this. Good things are happening because companies have to innovate to compete instead of take refuge in mega-mergers.
Is not it the job of banks to lend money? Use your credit card to finance your purchase. If you have no financial credit and you don't have a credit card, why are you buying expensive gadgets?, buy a simple phone because obviously you should not be wasting money on them
Utterly wrong, and ignorant of the very definition of "competition". Usually regulation works to PREVENT competition by helping a large entity prevent smaller competitors from succeeding.
Maybe, i'm feeding the troll here, but its pretty much impossible to study business/economics and not discover abuse of monopoly power, price fixing, collusion, and dozens of other practices that are outlawed because they allow a larger competitor to simply crush any upstarts. The GP is right, competition requires regulation to assure a level playing field. That regulation can be used to lock upstarts out of a field is just another case of monopoly abuse. The wierd thing is that there is plenty of "regulations" that could be repealed (see real-estate agents/broker laws for example) but that isn't the regulation that is being repealed. Instead its regulation to assure that I can't dump toxic sludge into the local creek thereby shifting a cost of business onto society.
To expand on what bored is saying.
Regulation can be used to restrict competition to the insiders. Real Estate is a good example. Most states require licensed realtors to offer Cadillac services – which means nobody offers a striped down version – which is why commissions are uniformly high.
On the other hand, regulation can be used to bring down the barriers to entry – see the internet. Telecom firms were required to wire up and transmit data regardless of who provided the equipment or services. Regulation helps when one side/group has a significant edge over consumers or other outside producers.
So regulation is neither good nor bad – it is how it used. (FYI, I prefer less regulation then more)