By 
When T-Mobile’s “UNcarrier” business strategy launched, it kinda threw everyone for a loop, and not just their competition. Apparently, advertising handsets that can be purchased on the cheap and without a 2-year contract was enough to send some red flags to the Washington State Attorney General. According to the Attorney General Bob Ferguson, T-Mobile’s new advertising direction was “deceptive” and he wants to make sure each and every consumers knows what they’re getting themselves into.
Apparently there might be some consumers out there that believe they could put the $100 down on a brand new phone, make a few payments, and leave whenever they wanted — all without paying the rest of the balance on their $700 smartphone. Crazy, right? Bob filed a court order which T-Mobile agreed to sign and change their advertising in order to ensure consumers are well aware of the limitations of these new “no-contract” contracts.
Those that feel like they may have been a victim of T-Mobile’s deceptive advertising will now have a way out. Anyone who’s purchased a handset between March 26th, and April 25th can obtain a refund for their equipment and end their contractual obligations without penalty. T-Mobile will also be contacting these new customers, notifying them of their rights.
Fact of the matter is although nobody is signing a 2-year agreement to stay with the carrier, customers are still signing an agreement to pay off their phone within 2-years. If they leave T-Mobile before then, they’re simply required to pay whatever is left on their balance. Almost like a traditional ETF, but comes out a little cheaper for the customer. While I’d call it obvious, I have been asked by some, “What happens when I end my contract early?” Yep.
I’m curious to hear our reader’s thoughts on this decision. Did you think T-Mobile was clear from the get-go on their Uncarrier plans, or do you think the American people really needed it spelled out for them? Anyone going to take advantage of this “offer” and get out while the gettin’s good?
No I don’t think they were very clear.
I agree. Though I knew I couldnt get a $600 phone for $180, I did try to read more into it as I prefer the old method. I get new cell phones cheap on renewal and my monthly bill is inexpensive as well
ugh, it’s this thinking that allows carriers such as verizon and at&t to continue to a$$ r@pe it’s customers.
that’s your opinion. he can have his own.
Not opinion. Fact.
Easy to call something a fact without providing any evidence, nor even explaining why they thing theyre opinion is fact.
The original method makes you wait forever to get a discount all while still charging you for said discount. If I owe 120 on an old phone, I can pay that off and make a down payment on a new phone and still pay less out the door than a “discounted” phone. Do the math.
You don’t have to wait forever. You could have Verizon terminate your contract. You pay the ETF (just like paying off your phone on T-Mobile). Then you can get a new contract and new discount.
Unless they changed things, if you do it this way you have to take a new number, too.
200+ 350. Hardly a discount. Also activation fee and not to mention you’d lose your unlimited data.
The problem with the other carriers is, once your 2 years are done, you still pay the same price for service even though your subsidy is over. Likewise, if you pay full price for the phone, you pay the same price for service as someone who got a subsidy.
Are you telling me there are people out there stupid enough to believe that they could buy a top-tier phone for $100, then walk away? Oh, wait, I have their children in my classroom. I already knew the answer to that one. Incredible.
people are stupid enough yes. but it’s not that they are stupid though it’s that people take advantage of situations like this with lawyers just to make money.
I’m a firm believer that we should remove the warning labels from everything and let the stupidity problem “solve itself”. I’m also a firm believer that the practice of law should be outlawed.
along with speeding tickets.
seriously i f**ing hate tickets
Me too
I was doing some research on this, and it reminded me of the days I was screwed by other wireless companies based in Washington State.
CellularOne was real, real horrible, AT&T was worse, Nextel was a joke, AirTouch really knew how to over-charge, and Guess what..? T-Mobile is based in Washington State too.
I’m glad that the Attorney Generals of the state keep their eyes out for companies who bilk wireless consumers.
I just can’t trust any company based in Washington. Microsoft is real bad too. It must be the weather, it makes companies based in Washington State real loopy.
Also Starbucks coffee is real horrible. I wish the Attorney General would look into the steps Starbucks uses to make such bad coffee, similar to the sales training.
What a real bad state. Can Washington do anything right? At least the legal eagle is keeping things in check.
I had no problem with the advertising and with a little common sense you know that you still have to pay the phone off even if you leave the carrier. Unfortunately, both critical thinking and common sense are limited in this country (US).
You said it much nicer than I thought of it. Why would anyone think you could buy a phone and then not pay for the rest of it ? Oh wait that’s right it’s americas sense of entitlement.
Yep
Yup. You can’t fix stupid.
Duh.
They deserve this because they are literally lying to customers telling them that they will save money going with the uncarrier plans.
I haven’t done the math for other phones, but when I bought my Nexus 4 I had about a 20 minute battle with a rep who was trying to tell me it was cheaper for me to pay $100 up front and $90 a month for 20 months (then 70 a month thereafter) than it was for me to buy the phone for $50 with a 2 year contract of $80 per month for 18 months (then $70 per month thereafter). I eventually had them write down all the prices and watch me put them into my calculator, at which time they finally gave up.
The whole idea of the unsubsidized plans is a joke because you can switch to them after you are 18 months into your contract, which completely defeats the purpose of even having them in the first place
Edit: I should note that people who think they get a cheap phone for free with no contract are idiots; however I do think t-mobile needs to revamp their advertising because they are literally lying to people about the new plans being cheaper, as is demonstrated by my EXTREMELY SIMPLE MATH EXAMPLE that no one seems to understand
You work for Verizon, don’t you?
I’ve never even set foot in a Verizon store
There is nothing difficult about simple math, I don’t know why this is hard for you to understand
This is with all plans at 2GB data, except At&t that doesn’t have a 2GB plan.
T-mobile: $60 a month x 24 months = $1440 + $579 16GB iPhone 5= $2019
Verizon: ($60 for plan + 40 a month for access) x 24 = $2400 + $200 16 GB iPhone 5 = $2600
T-Mobile is $581 dollars cheaper than Verizon over two years.
At&t: ($69.99 for unlimited calling + $30 3GB data + $20 messaging) x 24 = $2879 + 200 16GB iPhone 5 = 3079
T-Mobile is $1060 cheaper over two years.
I think you need to relearn math.
You’re a f***ing moron, I’m talking about old T-Mobile plans (subsidized) vs. new T-Mobile plans (uncarrier)
90 a month x 20 = 1800 + (70 x 4) = 2080 + 100 phone = $2180
New plans are cheaper than old ones by almost $200.
80 x 20 = 1600 + (70×4) = 1840 + 200 16GB iPhone 5 = 2040
Value plan is still cheaper by $21.
So you work for AT&T or Sprint.
I don’t work for a ****ing phone company and I have a contract with T-Mobile. The fact that you can’t read doesn’t mean I have to be an undercover agent for a competing phone company.
Verizon sucks. Sprint sucks. AT&T is a whole new level of suck that humankind has never before seen. I like T-Mobile. Their reps lie. All of these things are facts
first off if you buy a nexus you wouldn’t need to payby the month.. buy it from Google like a smart person would and save $20 a month right off the bat
I don’t think you get the point of the un-carrier plan. You aren’t locked into a contract, but you are paying off the phone if you got a new one from T-Mobile. The difference is if you’re on any other carrier paying $100+ a month for 2 years, at the end of the 2 years you’re still paying $100+ a month. With T-Mobile’s plan you are going to pay $70 a month and $20 a month for the handset, but after 2 years you go back to paying just the $70. And no one is forcing you to get the phone for the $20 a month, you can buy the phone outright. It’s really just shifting your payments from a credit card to T-mobile, except the former would actually let you come and go from the carrier as you please.
What you don’t seem to understand is that they let you switch to the uncarrier plan at the end of 18 months. Even if you cancel and pay an etf, you are still paying less the entire time with the only downside being that you are under contract for an additional 4 months with the subsidized plans. You do realize the $20/month payments are exactly the same as having a 20 month contract, right?
Has anyone who downvoted even looked into wtf I am talking about?
Ok so I looked into this more. T-Mobile is letting you get a phone for $99 and then they charge you a $20 a month payment cost for 24 months which comes out to $480 (which is actually a good price overall).
Now according to http://www.technobuffalo.com/2013/03/26/tmobile-plans-explained/, you can actually leave at any point in time in that 24 months, but you still have to pay T-Mobile $20 a month until the phone is paid for. So there is no ETF with the exception that you have to pay off the phone.
With Verizon when I broke my contract it was about $200 or so for the ETF. I imagine they included some extra cost to take care of my phone originally being subsidized. T-Mobile’s plan sounds awesome as long as you want to stay in the GSM realm. If you buy a phone, leave early and go to like Sprint or Verizon you’re screwed paying for a phone you can’t use, but it’s still better.
Yeah but if you leave while under contract and pay the ETF, you still get to keep the phone, which in my mind amounts to exactly the same thing as the “unsubsidized” situation.
I like T-Mobile, they have fantastic data speeds and great phone selection, my monthly plan price is great, and I am very happy with them. I’m just saying their new plans are not better in any way unless you get a really cheap phone that you can pay off quickly
> unless you get a really cheap phone that you can pay off quickly
Or if you buy a phone elsewhere (Nexus from Google Play, Amazon unlocked selection, unlocked AT&T phone) because you want that phone instead of one T-Mo offers.
EDIT: Wait! Found one other difference…
Monthly payment on the phone varies based on phone price, something the subsidized plans did not do.
HTC One = $20 x 24 months
Nexus 4 = $17 x 24 months
Galaxy Relay 4G = $15 x 24 months
MyTouch Q = $10 x 24 months
Your different prices per phone doesn’t prove anything.
The cheaper a phone is:
a) T-Mobile – cheaper the monthly rate
b) Verizon – cheaper the phone up front. Top of the line phones go for $200-$250. Other phones you can get for free.
It is the same thing essentially.
The up-front payment for those phones vary, too. Allow me to clarify:
HTC One = $99.99 + ($20 x 24)
Nexus 4 = $49.99 + ($17 x 24)
MyTouch Q = $0 + ($10 x 24)
Also, it appears the down payment on T-Mo for the Galaxy S4 is cheaper than the subsidized price on AT&T or Verizon by $50. The Note II down payment on T-Mobile is $150, the subsidized AT&T or Verizon price is $300.
But they are better. When I went into the store to change my current plan to one of their new plans, the guy said I was on a two-year contract with my old plan, and that if I’d left T-Mobile, I would have to pay the early termination fee. However, I was able to switch to their new plan at no extra cost, and now I can leave whenever I want with no penalty with the exception of my remaining balance on my phone.
I agree that in terms of pricing, it’s relatively the same as before; you sign up, pay $70 a month for service and roughly $20 (depending on your phone) for your device, and after you payoff the phone, you’re left paying the $70/month for service. I think where you’re argument gets lost is where everyone seems to think you’re comparing T-Mobile’s new plans with other carriers’ plans.
To clear the air, T-Mobile’s pricing and plan structure is roughly the SAME as it was before, the main difference is you’re not tied down in a contract for their service. Yes, you are contracted to pay off the phone, but nothing else. It’s like buying a car from GM, they may recommend you take your car to their GoodWrench auto services, but you have no obligation to do so. However, you’re still required to pay the car. Not the best example, but hopefully I got my point across.
You shoulda bought a Nexus 4 for $350 from the Play Store, then jumped on T-Mobile’s $30 per month unlimited text, unlimited prepaid plan and just buy minutes as you go.
How come you used 18 months for the 2 year contract(2×12=24 months)? I know some carriers allowed early upgrades at the 18/20 month mark but you were never out of contract at 18/20 months. Also your Nexus 4 costs come out to $500 when they sell the phone for $460.
I looked online at the plan/phone combo you mentioned and I got $0 down payment and $17×24 months payment plan=$408. Granted that is with a web discount on the down payment so we’ll say $460 total for the phone. Add $70×24 for service=$1680, total being $2,140.
With your unsubsidized example we’d have $50 up front and $90×24=$2,160, or a total of $2,210.
The sales rep told me I could switch to the $60 (I don’t remember exactly how much) no contract plan after I had been through 18 months of my contract. I would still have my contract for the remaining 6 months, but I would be paying the same rate as if I had bought the phone off contract and done the $60 + $20 for 20 months.
The result is this (and I should add that this is a 2 person family plan, so it would actually be way worse if I included the other person’s payments–I am only looking at mine):
Plan A (subsidized): $50 for phone, 2 year contract of $75 per month x 18 months, then $60 per month x 6 months.
Plan B (unsubsidized) $100 up front, $60 + 20 per month x 20 months, then $60 per month times 4 months
So over 2 years what I get is 1760 for plan A vs 1940 for plan B.
I think what most people don’t understand is the part where they let you switch to the unsubsidized plan rates after 18 months, even though you have 6 months left on your contract.
When I did that a couple years ago (Switch to Even More Plus), They charged an ETF. I still saved enough over the rest of my contract term to make up the ETF and then some, but you’re not figuring that in here. So either your rep was mis-informed, or they *really* are serious about changing how things work.
*spoiler alert* The benefit of unsubsidized no contract plans is that you can bring your own phone, a Nexus phone, Craigslist phone, whatever, and get a low cost plan without any commitment to the service provider for 2 years, and not have to pay the subsidized premium. It’s what we’ve been waiting for and now that it’s here most don’t seem to “get it”. Those that do want to buy a phone with the service provider get a no interest loan that can be paid off at any time or in monthly installments, similar to a subsidized plan, but it’s not forced on everyone, like those that want to bring their own phone or don’t want to upgrade their current phone.
This is the only purpose of their unsubsidized plans. However they are advertising them as being cheaper over time in all cases, which at least in my scenario was not true.
you are comparing a phone that went on sale through contract of the carrier to a full retail priced phone off contract, so the sales rep mislead you, but the plans ARE cheaper. in normal cases you would have had to put $200 down payment for that contract phone for 2 years and your contact wouldn’t get cheaper after any amount of time vs putting 100 down or more and your contact getting cheaper whenever it’s paid off. or if you buy the phone out right, your contract is bare minimum.
See above
i did see above, like i said, you are comparing a discounted phone. $50 was not what the phone was going for at launch. It was going for $200 up front. Also, under normal contract situations, your contract would never go down after 18 months.
Lol I mean the comment I JUST posted to the person right above me, not the original post. You are correct that the $50 was a sale, but the price of the phone has been $100 or less pretty much all the time since February. I just checked the website and noticed the overall cost is now $457 and not $500 like it was when I got the phone in feb, so it may be a different situation now. As far as I know, they let anyone on contract switch over to unsub. rates after 18 months, unless they lied to me about that also
This is the problem. Slowly, but surely, the ass-clowns that people are voting into office (and subsequently, the people that they appoint) are eliminating the need for personal accountability. Common sense is apparently dead in Washington. No, you don’t get to sign up for a payment plan, pay for a couple months of service, and then keep the phone without paying it off.
This is a waste of state resources.
I’m pretty sure that when anyone pick up a phone with this payment plans the rep inform them of how it is. 100% sure that it will be in writing in the document that the customer signs at the time of purchase. If the customer doesn’t read it, it’s on them if they default and try not to pay the remainder balance of the phone…
Wow, people are kinda… um, stupid.
Yep, and it’s the government that enables that stupidity. Rather than letting this be a “lesson learned” to the idiots, no, they have to make T-Mobile go through all this instead.
Like that woman who spilled hot coffee on herself at McDonalds, and sued MickyD’s because the coffee was “too hot”, and won. I’m sorry, if I order a hot coffee, I kinda expect it to be, well, um, hot?
The McDonald’s thing is literally what killed any faith I had in the justice system.
You should read up on the McDonald’s coffee thing. It sounds ridiculous, but there was evidence that her cup of coffee was being served at an unreasonably high temperature. McDonald’s was at fault in that case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants
Wouldn’t trust Wikipedia with something like this since anyone can edit the articles.
I’ll save you the research and give you the only info that matters. The plaintiff proved that coffee at 180° gives you a third degree burn in as little as 12 seconds while coffee at 160° takes 20 seconds. Eight extra seconds to remove the article of clothing from the skin. McDonald’s also ignored 700 complaints from the 10 years prior, but never went to court over it, always setting, for as much as $500,000 in some instances. They also ignored their own research of people saying they bought coffee to consume immediately rather than over the course of a longer commute.
I knew all that, and I don’t accept that McDonald’s was responsible (despite what the courts found), because as I said, when I order “hot coffee” I expect “hot coffee”. 160 degree, 180 degree, or 200 degree, it doesn’t matter. If it spills on me, I expect to get burned. “How bad” is not the point. The point is, I expect it to happen. I’m not a moron. So, I don’t spill hot coffee on me! And if it happens accidentally, then I man up and DEAL with it – I ordered it hot, after all. If I wanted it to not burn me if spilled, I’d have ordered it iced, or at the very least “room temperature”. Common sense – I expect “hot” things to burn me.
You sound like a lawyer, Xanok.
You are making way too much sense for most people. I completely agree
When a drunk driver hits you and paralyzes you you also probably expect to man up and deal with it because you know that there are drunk drivers on the road and you take that risk when you get in the car.
thats the most ass backwards logic i think i have ever heard applied to any situation. i bet your one of the morons that thinks the government should be able to take our guns away because us americans are just too stupid to be owning them. the united states is screwed because idiots like you wont stop breeding
Bad example, he had no control over the idiot who got behind the wheel while been drunk…he did have control of the hot coffee in his possession..
He didn’t have control over the temperature of the coffee.
Totally different story – I didn’t ask to get hit by a drunk driver. I didn’t ask for the drunk driver to get behind the wheel of the vehicle. But I did ask for hot coffee. I had the EXPECTATION of receiving hot coffee.
Let me ask you something. Lets say you ask me to sell you a gun, and I do so. And then you go use that gun to shoot somebody. Am I liable? No, I am not. I sold you a gun. You asked for a gun. You knew what you were getting into when you bought the gun. I knew what that gun could POTENTIALLY be used for. But I didn’t know you were going to shoot somebody. If I did, the lines get a little greyer, yes. But assuming I didn’t know this (similarly to how the McDonalds employee didn’t know this lady would spill the coffee on her), you and I had a deal. What you do with what I sold you after our deal is over, is NOT IN ANY WAY MY RESPONSIBILITY OR FAULT, unless the device/service I sold you was not as described, broken, non-functional, or faulty. PERIOD.
Now, sure, you can argue that hot coffee that is “too hot” meets the claim of “faulty”. I’d have to disagree there. If your definition of “hot” is “will not cause burns if spilled” then the 160 degree stuff you claim is fine is actually not, because it will still cause 3rd degree burns, it will just take a few extra seconds to do so compared to something hotter. But the burn factor is still present. I’d argue that it isn’t “hot” at all if it is less than 140ish or so, and yes, that will still cause burns.
If you sold me a gun that fired when the trigger was pulled at 25 percent when it was an industry standard that the gun didn’t fire until it was pulled 50 percent then you could be liable to me if I accidentally shoot somebody and discover this difference. It would be a negligible difference at best but it would be enough. This discussion is useless anyways because you are wrong, because the law says that you are wrong and that’s all that really matters.
The law is wrong, and should be changed. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. Just because something is illegal doesn’t make it wrong.
She would’ve sued for getting frostbite with the ice coffee…. -_-
I’m not a lawyer. I believe that companies should hold some sort of responsibility for making a safe product. The court deemed this product was not safe.There’s a difference between hot and too hot and the jury believed McDonald’s coffee was too hot. What if they served it to you at 200°? Would that be too hot? What about 210°? What if they served it to you so hot that you dropped it all over yourself immediately upon grabbing the cup? Would your response be “oh well, I asked for hot coffee. I deserved it.”?
The reality of the situation is that there is no such thing as a “safe product”. Any and every single thing today *can* be used to harm another individual, be it accidentally or on purpose. A hammer is far from safe if it’s dropped on an individual’s foot, or worse, a child’s head. Should we ban hammers? What about hammers that are heavier than 22 ounces? What about all the other items that are heavier than 22 ounces, that aren’t hammers? Ban them, too? Guns are DESIGNED to hurt people. Yet we still allow Smith & Wesson to remain in business. Nobody who gets shot with a S&W sues the gun maker, they go after the shooter. Did McDonalds intend for the lady to get burnt? No, it did not. What was the cause of the lady being burnt? The lady did something stupid. I’m sorry, but when you try to blame others for your own stupidity, you’re ruining the system for everybody else.
Hot coffee is far from safe, if spilled, at any temperature. It is, by definition, HOT. Should we ban hot coffee? At what point do you draw the line? Obviously, in a different place than I do – that’s what this argument is truly about.
Since you asked, I’d fault McDonald’s only if the coffee was so hot that holding the container would not be practical – in which case their employees would have difficulty handing it to me in the first place. Or, maybe I’d fault the cup manufacturer instead for having a crappy product – it’s as much their fault isn’t it?
McDonalds lost because they admitted that they produced the coffee at a temperature that would not be drinkable immediately after purchase, because in their opinion more people waited until they drove to work to drink their coffee. That is how “too hot” became defined. They heated their coffee to a temperature higher than other hot coffees. You’re entire “safe product” explanation was a complete waste because it isn’t so much about whether or not a product is fool proof, it is about reasonable expectation.
How is hot coffee too hot ? Its common sense that if you get a hot coffee, its hot and you should be careful regardless of the temperature. People that need to drink their coffee immediately as you said a supposed study said tells me that an idiot that isnt patient enough to wait for their coffee to cool down deserves to get burnt, and shouldnt be rewarded.
you forgot she also sued her mother, and the car company because her mother cant drive and the car didn’t have cup holders or some crap like that
No wonder usa is becoming the sinking Shop…. So many idiots r running it…. Sigh
There are warning labels for a reason. Some dumb ass, somewhere, tried to do what anybody with a brain knows you shouldn’t/can’t do and didn’t like the consequences.
I don’t know seemed very clear to me, seems some people where just trying to take advantage of wording , pretty common actually aka ..all those craigslist phones lol……..
lmfao. they were acting like it was no contact. the plan still involve contract. the HTC ONE from the HTC site is a no contract phone. pay 575 and its also bloatware free.
There isn’t a contract. You could pay $580 for the One at a T-Mobile store and walk away after one month.
You have the *option* of putting part of the phone cost on payments. If you leave, you’re expected to pay off the remainder of that debt, but you’re not under any contract.
thought this was pretty straight forward. not sure how this is confusing to people.
Man! Should have bought like 10 brand new Note 2s and peaced. Profit baby! For those that can’t tell, I’m just playing.
What happen to common sense. To me it was simple to under stand.
The new Obama phone plan. (Sarcasm)
People that stupid deserve to be ripped off
I tried to tell my mother and others who know absolutely nothing opposed to me about carriers and phones that a contract is still involved. Except it’s with the phone now.
American
Well, I for one am glad I saw this article. I literally just boxed up the iphone I got cause I guess I have finally proven to myself I am an Android guy. I was going to have to eat the $50 restocking fee and was going to get the one to replace it. Thanks for pointing this out and saving me $50.
Just bring your own Android device to Tmobile, and you’ll save loads of money in the long run, and with no contracts.
I dunno, there’s a difference between spilling hot coffee that’s gonna make me let out a few swear words and spilling hot coffee that’s gonna require a skin graft…
I am happy about this. It’s funny to think that all of you on this blog expect that everyone to be as knowledgeable about this world as you are. My Grandmother is better at math then all of you but give some good marketing tools and a commission driven smooth talker – bad things can happen. These laws protect the weakest of us from the strongest of us. I am all about it.
survival of the fittest mobalicka.
Not when it comes to my Grandmother. That’s why I pay taxes. So that it’s NOT survival of the fittest. So that she is protected, and I don’t have to follow her around all day with a bat to beat the hell out of people like you.
I KID…
That if you leave you have to pay the balance is the unknown. Tmoibile was assuming that it was already know knowledge. It also tells you on the EIP you sign. I think that is a little asinine that someone though they could buy a 649 phone put 99 down then cancel and get a new phone scott free.
They were clear from the beginning.. Helloooooooo, 2+2 is equal 5…. Lol Oopps, I meant 4
“Did you think T-Mobile was clear from the get-go on their Uncarrier plans?”
Yes.
“…or do you think the American people really needed it spelled out for them?”
Yes.
Dumb people always win against evil corporation, huh?
When I saw these new T-Mobile campaign, I was like, how is it different from committing another 2-yr contract, lol. They just kind of worded differently but you still pay those $99 / $199 with 2yr monthly crap!
idiots
What T-Mobile is doing really isn’t any different than what you can already do at Verizon or AT&T.
You want to bring your own phone?
No contract commitment required by any carrier.
You want to pay full price up front to the carrier?
No contract commitment required by any carrier.
You want to pay for part of the phone up front only?
This is where T-Mobile claims they are different and special…. but it really isn’t different.
Verizon + AT&T require a 2 year commitment. You can leave at any time by paying ETF. This is essentially equivalent to T-Mobile making you pay for the rest of the phone.
T-Mobile doesn’t require a 2 year commitment. But still, you have to pay for the remainder of the phone.
I think this is the point being made by the AG.
you are forgettign that verizon n att’s per month payments are the same whether you buy a phone through them or bring your own. Tmobile’s is not. If you bring your own phone it is cheaper service.
Maybe I’m mistaken. But T-Mobile does not offer contracts anymore at all for new customers?
So, they do not technically offer a discount if you bring your own phone. They only have 1 rate. Same as Verizon. Yes, it is cheaper… but that’s not what we’re talking about.
You can’t sign a 2 year contract + subsidized phone for $70 a month.
Its not one rate though, its one rate if you bring your own phone, and it can be one of a multitude of rates if you do not. If i buy a subsidized phone through tmobile it’ll be lets say $100 down and $80/mo plan… after 18 months when the phone is paid off my plan drops back down to $60… and stays at $60 until i decide to buy a new phone (which for many people ranges from months to even a year or more). On verizon, if you get a $200 down payment phone n sign your $100/mo contract, after 2 years once your contract is up, if you wait around for a few months or a year, your monthly payment remains at $100/mo. So there is no cost benefit to bringing your own phone to verizon.
You’re trying to skew the facts.
You’re acting as if there is one contract that starts at $80/month. Goes down to $60 after 18 months.
The truth is you are signing 2 contracts.
1. $60/mth for the voice/data. This can be cancelled at anytime.
2. This is the contract to pay off the remainder of your phone monthly. This ends either when A) You cancel your voice/data and then you have to pay off the rest of your phone (aka…. just like paying ETF on Verizon) or B) The monthly payments pay off the phone.
Either way, as long as you stay with T-Mobile, you are paying $60/mth for voice/data. They will finance the full price of any phone you want.
I’m not trying to argue that T-Mobile isn’t cheaper in the long run. That is true.
But, what T-Mobile offers isn’t really different than what you can do at Verizon.
You can cancel Verizon anytime (even with a contract). But, you still have to pay off the phone (by way of the ETF).
There is no ETF equivalent if you bring your own device though to tmobile. That’s the difference. Also if you bring your own device to verizon, do you still have to sign a contract to enjoy the same plan as ones on contract? not being sarcastic, im genuinely asking. “bring your own device” wasnt clickable when i tried to do the share everything plan on verizons website.
I’m not really trying to skew the facts, these are just two different ways to look at it, you can look at it as being cheaper with an add on charge for phone and that add on charge changing depending on how much your phone cost, but that is still different from tradition contracts. You are also you can get as many early upgrades as you like. i could buy a HTC one right now for $100… sell it in 2 months, buy a new gs4 for $100 down, trade in it in 3 months, buy a note for $100 down etc.
The problem with their new plans is that I honestly think most people don’t realize that smartphones actually cost 500-700 dollars. I think many actually think 200 bucks is what a smartphone costs and have no notion of the whole carrier subsidy concept. So for T-Mobile I think if they come out and say “look no contracts but you pay $579 for the phone” you’ll have a lot of idiots who think they are jacking up the price on the phone from the “real” price of $200.
I guess retailers should remove all the “misleading” prices that actually have rebates attached to them.
You have got to be kidding me! Then again, in general the industry has perpetuated this ‘free phone’ myth for so long that TMobiles new no-contract could be confusing to some induhviduals,
I agree with the decision. They advertising was vague and almost suggested you could walk away before 2 yrs and not pay anything.
Advertising can’t give you 100% of the information. They’re 30 seconds long. All you have to do is read a service agreement. Or ask somebody. Seriously, use your brain!
I think the problem wasn’t so much that people thought they could leave and not pay the rest of the phone off at all.. But that some people could be under the impression that they can leave and still just pay the $20 a month, as opposed to paying the phone off at once. That is a bit deceptive.
I cant see how anyone would be confused by the way it was presented. Its not T-Mobiles fault people are fucking morons.
I’ve had to spell out the new T-mobile contracts for several people. The masses are extremely stupid.