I have pondered switching but I feel it’s just the same shit, different company.
In the US, you don’t have many options. Primary carriers are ATT, T-Mobile, and Verizon. Sure you can go with an MVNO, but they use the same networks as the big three.
Plus I manage my families lines and migrating is just a pain in the ass
The networks are not the issue in my experience with phone companies. Much of the negativity is associated with dealing with the support side of things. To that end, I couldn't be happier with Google Fi. I've moved my whole family over (except for my dad, who just wants to use a dumbphone and doesn't even have a google account). They're the least bad support-wise in my experience.
Yes, they’re the same networks, but my experience as a customer is significantly better and I’m spending significantly less than I was before. I spend less on both lines combined than I spent with Verizon in the past.
In the years since I made the switch, I’ve often wondered why I didn’t do it sooner.
It's not that much work.
It's easy enough that I've migrated my number to my own carrier a number of times when they've offered rates only applicable to new customers. (i.e. port my number out to a prepaid carrier, then port it back to my carrier as a "new customer".)
The US have three networks, I believe, Denmark has three networks as well. Both have a number of MVNOs. For some reason pricing for service in the US is just crazy.
I pay 119DKK or ~20USD for unlimited talk and SMS, plus 30GB of data (and 30GB of data abroad in pretty much any country) per month. My American colleagues starts pondering getting a local SIM, when travelling, because data is expensive, both at home and when travelling. I see people on websites commenting "Make sure you're on wifi" ... WHY, data costs almost nothing, you can get free data for 35USD. Except you can't, not in the US at least.
Why is cell service so expensive in the US? I get that it's a big country, and it would cost more to build out the network, but there's also more people and you don't exactly need to cover the middle of the desert or random fields with anything but 2G.
Now I am on Mint Mobile, and it's honestly been fantastic. I pay about $120/month (pre-paid for 6 months though) for 5 lines now (kids!), with way more cell data per line. Each line can be on a different plan, too! Very occasionally a text message will be a bit delayed, but I mostly use iMessage anyways. Have not had any other issues. Well worth it. I highly recommend the switch. You'll save a ton of money.
So if the big three are able to set new [higher] price standards for their own customers, eventually they will increase wholesale rates for third parties piggybacking on the network. This will of course eventually trickle down to prepaid/MVNOs.
One of the many reasons why the Sprint acquisition was anti-consumer.
If there is any disruption to be had, it is an MVNO that is plugged into all US carriers, as well as satellite offerings, with the ability to pivot around whenever a carrier tries to squeeze the relationship. Google Fi with more carriers and better customer support, Airalo, etc. This enables you to keep your number while the service underneath the account can shift.
The prioritization is pretty straightforward, there’s a good reddit post that keeps track: https://www.reddit.com/r/NoContract/comments/1cyfjpp/data_pr...
Mike Sievert has been slowly undoing all of John Legere's reforms rolling back to pre-2012 T-Mobile that was a middling network on the downswing. This is just yet another example of the enshittification of T-Mobile back to irrelevancy at Mike Sievert's hands.
PS - It wasn't all rainbows and sunshine under John Legere. He definitely had a "move fast and break things" approach, and broke a lot of things, often with stores hearing about promotions after customers. Plus the network had multiple break-ins during his tenure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_acquisition_of_T-Mob...
> ”T-Mobile will never change the price you pay for your T-Mobile One plan”
> T-Mobile also published an FAQ that answered the question, "What happens if you do raise the price of my T-Mobile One service?" It explained that the only guarantee is T-Mobile will pay your final month's bill if the price goes up and you decide to cancel
Each number port takes 20-30 minutes (less if you do multiple at a time, but it’s a tedious process).
I had 9 lines with T-Mobile, but paid for only 6 due to promos (3 free lines). I trimmed them down to 6 initially, which was supposed to bring my bill from $250 down to $185 (this was to avoid the $5/line price hike they hit older subscribers with), according to the T-Mo rep I spoke with.
In the end, I reduced the number of lines to 5. My next bill: $315! Because they removed all line promos and wouldn’t honor them. I called T-Mo and mentioned I had been told $185 for 6, so how is it $315 for 5, and was told there is no mistake and the pricing is correct. I informed them I had recorded the call where the T-Mo rep said 6 for $185, and they said it wouldn’t matter because they don’t record calls themselves for contractual purposes, just customer service quality.
So, T-Mo managed to effectively steal $100+ from me by telling me one thing, billing me for another, and providing me no advance notice or recourse to resolve that (except arbitration).
Two supervisors at T-Mobile didn’t care, even after explaining to them the situation and asking why I would cut lines if the cost was going to be more in the end. They agreed it didn’t make much sense, but that the bill was still correct and no adjustments would be made, even though I was specifically lied to. I spent probably $25,000 with T-Mo under this contract and they happily nickel and dime me for another $100 on the way out, no effort to even retain me as a customer.
That said, it’s taken a good 5 hours and a dozen calls with Verizon to get things moved over and they’re full of bad service and hidden info, too (can’t unlock new device for 60 days, so I have to carry 2 phones to have my European number/SIM with me).
Ultimately, it’s a very weird market when the 3 carriers are poaching each others customers with offers that existing customers can’t get, and then making it super annoying to exit carriers without paying for two bills for at least a month (at least when you have 9 lines).
If you aren’t playing the promo game and upgrading your phone every time it is eligible for free, you’re wasting money with the big carriers.
You’ll claw back the 100$ they tried to steal from you and likely feel better about the whole deal while disincentivizing this kind of behavior.
I wish there were an alternative, but the other carriers in the US are just as shady, and Google Fi uses T-Mobile. Mobile plan prices are increasing and are now more than a water or electric bill for a family of 4. The Gov should break up the industry; they have facilitated an oligarchy of Telecoms like Canada has.
But then I need a new phone... waiting for a good promotion to switch to AT&T or Verizon.
SOLAR_FIELDS•13h ago
One of my least favorite things about the States is how this continues to be legal. Hiding the true cost of a product from consumers is anti capitalist and violates free market principles. And no, this isn’t “too difficult” to achieve. Basically every other developed nation roll taxes into the listed price and businesses still manage to operate in those nations.
Arkhadia•13h ago
sokoloff•13h ago
OJFord•12h ago
sokoloff•12h ago
* - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law
dboreham•13h ago
Marsymars•12h ago
whynotminot•11h ago
This is why we need regulation. It’s really hard to be honest when everyone else is lying.
SoftTalker•12h ago
But to expect a company advertising something like a "price lock" didn't build in escape clauses for themselves is just being naive.
kevin_thibedeau•12h ago
ooterness•12h ago
SoftTalker•12h ago
hiatus•11h ago
SoftTalker•9h ago
https://youtu.be/AtK_YsVInw8
deathanatos•4h ago
And what some of us consumers are saying is enough of this bullshit. Corporations should not be able to promise something, and then walk back the entirety of the promise in the fine print. If you want to advertise it, then it had better be true.
Someone1234•12h ago
For example: "Regulatory Recovery/Cost Recovery Fee," "Administrative Fee," "Network Access Fee," "Telecom Relay Service Surcharge," and "Local Number Portability" aren't taxes, but they look like taxes due to the misleading verbiage. These all go straight to the networks and in their books don't offset anything specific. These are your classic "what we can get away with fee."
This comingling of network fees and government taxes, and then wording fees like taxes, has worked incredibly well to the point that people online will defend them. Maybe TicketMaster should take note.
SoftTalker•12h ago
hiatus•11h ago
creeble•11h ago
The answer (eventually) was that they do indeed pay the fee to government, but it varies with usage in a complex, government-defined formula in a bill from the 90s.
Someone1234•10h ago
By that logic, why stop there? Why not have Gas Taxes, Vehicle Registration Fees, Payroll Taxes, Corporate Property Taxes, or Permitting Fees as separate line items in the cellular bill? Which may sound absurd, but that's identical logic to most of the existing non-tax fees.
creeble•6h ago
I'm not trying to excuse Verizon for not including them in their overall pricing, but these two in particular:
- Fed Universal Service Charge
- Regulatory Charge
are both paid to the government, and variable based on usage.
Edit: I will also note that Verizon has a $3.50 per-line fixed line item called "Admin & Telco Recovery Charge" that is utter BS.
Someone1234•4h ago
It actually means exactly that. A building permit is also a tax. If it is paid to the government (any government of any level) by force of law it is a tax; calling taxes "fees" doesn't make them any more not taxes.
If they said all "taxes and other government fees" that would be better, I suppose. But they don't say that, and their current fees aren't all government originating, ultimately making this price lock completely meaningless.
malshe•11h ago
lotsofpulp•12h ago
California went as far as passing legislation requiring businesses to advertise total pre tax price, and then worked overtime at the last minute to exempt restaurants. Such an embarrassment.
barbazoo•11h ago
iambateman•12h ago
A $20 burger actually costs $30 at a restaurant.
Last week I was at a car dealer and they had a car priced at $24.7k which they insisted they could never sell for less than $28k.
I'll never understand why we can't all agree to just make the price the price.
ElevenLathe•12h ago
Not sure if you're being rhetorical or not, but the reason is very simple: Sellers want it this way because it makes their job (selling you stuff) easier. The sellers are the ones in charge of the laws about selling (there are a few scattered consumer lobbying organizations but they are nothing compared to industry lobbyists in basically every industry). As a result, the preferences of consumers do not matter, at least on the margin.
iambateman•10h ago
ApolloFortyNine•11h ago
But I recently was buying a vehicle and the otd price was 20% more than the price on their site, before sales tax/license fees. That practice is obviously anti-consumer.
BurningFrog•11h ago
We're just annoyed that you pay more than what's advertised. If you're used to truthful labels, that feels insane. And intentionally deceptive.