https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/06/t-mobile-users-thought-they-had-a-lifetime-price-lock-guess-what-happened-next/
"T-Mobile will never change the price you pay," the carrier told users in 2017.
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.
Jesus fuck, how do they get away with that?
"where are you going to go, our competitors? manic laughter"
I would suggest an mvno but they are being eaten alive too so
Could have the same but decided to go for 35GB for ~7$ prepaid. If I like the carrier I may change to their 80GB 7$ subscription but I m not sure yet
I work from home and never call anyone so on Tello I pay $6/mo for 100 minutes + 1GB of data that pretty much functions as a 2FA delivery system.
I have the same plan, but use it for places that insist on getting your phone number, that don't need my phone number. So they get my second number that gets used a few times a year.
Tello is my second line provider, they are quite good. I'm worried that tmo will squeeze them out, or end their agreement or something. Tmo is already doing shenanigans to lycra mobile, afaik, and they ate up metropcs, mint, and ultra.
I trust tello. I don't trust tmo.
That would be a nightmare scenario where T-Mobile would start to squeeze MVNO's for around the same price of someone paying for t-mobile after buying them. Honestly I don't know if I would even have a mobile connection at that point anymore as I am quite poor! There are really no good alternatives out there for cheap service especially for my area and my terrible terrible smartphones that aren't supported on any other networks. Especially! After AT&T decided to force manufacturers to pay for "HD Voice" which was just rebranded volte using the same bands that they had before most of them deciding not to for the cheaper brands of android smartphones out there.
USM repurposed an old subscription email system for their 2FA, and if you had opted-out of the advertising before, well you don't get 2FA codes then. I spent a few days figuring this out with support. They removed 2FA from my account and explained the situation. A year later, I re-enabled 2FA, because SURELY they'd have fixed it by now, right? This was ~3 and 2 years ago, respectively.
I'm still locked out of the account because they never fixed it. If that's how they handle their systems, I want no fucking part of it. Can't pay me enough to put a number I care about under their control.
Well they published the FAQ which was available to consumers BEFORE they signed the initial contract, so, that was the deal they took
Yeah but it's just blatant false advertising when the FAQ or ToS directly contradicts the public advertising.
It also wasn't in the ToS/T&C. The FAQ is not a legal document, and I wouldn't expect to need to read it if I read the T&C.
Hell. With the way life is going I'd settle for just regular roofies. I'm trying to adopt napping as a hobby. Seems like I'm happiest when I'm not awake
That's capitolism, baybeeeee!!!! Regulation free, the way it was meant to be!!! Where huge corporate interests dominate not only politics, but also the legal system, and healthcare systems! Where the only punishment is a fine so big the average citizen would consider it lifelong crippling debt, but the average corporation would look at it as a fraction of doing business. Because they have more money than anyone would ever need. That makes them better than you, and you know it.
I'd now like to quote one of philosophys greatest minds.
"In case you can't tell, I was being SARCASTIC!!!" ~Homer Simpson.
I'm not sure it was false advertising, the product was called "UnContract" "Mobile One" not "eternity price lock forever plan", the customer can choose to not pay any more if they cancel their contract before they pay again after the current contract period ends (all contracts everywhere for everything in history are like this), if the details were in the faq that they could read before signing the deal, then that's the deal they signed. It's deceptive, maybe fraudulent, but I'm not sure it's false advertising.
From the article:
"New rule: Only YOU should have the power to change what you pay," T-Mobile said in a January 2017 announcement of its "Un-contract" promise for T-Mobile One plans. "Now, T-Mobile One customers keep their price until THEY decide to change it. T-Mobile will never change the price you pay for your T-Mobile One plan."
Explain how that is not a blatant lie.
tmoblie lawyer: we cannot force a price change midway through a current contract, which we refer to as "the plan". therefore we are not forcing the customer to pay a higher price at any time for their plan, though when one contract period ends, we may change the price, and the consumer can then decide whether they are willing to pay any higher price than their previous plans price, going forward.
that faq laying out the possibility of a price hike, and the expectation of compensation, means every word and punctuation can, and is being "lawyered"
Except the possibility to keep the current price is no longer available, therefore, the consumer does not have the option to continue paying the same price, ergo TMobile forced the customer to change the price they pay, either to a higher amount for the same contact or to 0 for no contact. The original advertisement stated that TMobile would never change the price a customer pays, but it directly forcing this change by not offering the same contact.
As you said. it's not false, but it is deceptive.
People should be reading the small print though, or in this case an FAQ.
There's a place for more strict regulations on advertising here though. You shouldn't be able to make out a product is one thing in the headline, then tell us it isn't further down the page.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there already precident set in the 90s that EULAs do not have any holding in a court of law as a contract if the terms are labeled to be unrealistic? I swear someone sued microsoft because they did something in their EULA for Windows 95, and when it went to court, the judge said "yeah, fuck this...."
And the thing about precidents is, once they're established, courts generally tend to follow that precident, else it would mean that two similiar cases with similiar backgrounds were judged differently.
Contracts aren't invalidated because conflicting info is available somewhere else.
What they signed in the contract is the deal they took, nothing more.
I had one of these plans for over a decade. It was fun while it lasted—I won't be staying with the company after this.
Had a "pay as you go" contract since 1997 (not with T) - they told everyone that you need a new SIM for a network upgrade which required deactivating the original SIM. New SIM didn't work in normal (Nokia 1110) phones. Then they sent SMS saying that they weren't going to honour the original PAYG phone contracts.
Can I send an SMS to the bank telling them I will not be honoring our mortgage agreement?
At least they will pay your last month of service when you leave 👍. I agree that they should not have changed the terms later and then rolled back the pr and everything after they terminated the program.
I don't know that they have "changed the terms", it just that they advertised it as if it was an actual guarantee to not see price increases, when it was only a guarantee that they would pay customers last months bill if they wanted to cancel if they did increase the price of montly service. It could be claimed it was fraud (with a very low likelihood of succeeding at trial), but not false advertising, if the terms were laid out for anyone to read before they signed their contract.
We had the “framily” plan from way back. They did the same to us in 2020. Eventually, you could not update your device without upgrading your plan.
We all bailed, lol
Edit: Almost forgot! I had call them 3 (three!!!!) times to finally get the service cancelled. By no accident, I’m sure. And they still left me with the 3 month bill.
Why not just buy the device from the manufacturer, swap the sim, and boom you're "upgraded".
It blows my mind how people think 'carrier store' = 'cell phone store' and it's the only place to get them. Friends and family were baffled by this new information when I had this discussion with them. Imagine thinking that the only place you can buy a vehicle is at [your insurance company's local office]. All the carrier is doing is offering the service, and they sell phones too for convenience (and to lock in customers but shhh).
Yup, T-Mobile lets you bring your own device. I buy all of mine used on eBay for significantly less than retail. I just have to make sure it's unlocked or locked to Sprint or T-Mobile.
Which is probably why most people get the phones from their carriers. Some of them do have special models, because they do something weird with their spectra.
Well, for many years carriers would give you ~$400 credit towards buying a phone when you signed a contract. There would be "free" phones or the $500 Motorola Razr would be $100 with contract.
Not everyone has the luxury of spending $1200 cash on a phone outright. Unfortunately, the payment plan is a big factor for a lot of people (in a “family” plan.)
You're still paying the money either way. Buying from the manufacturer typically means paying a much lower price.
Yeah if you want a flagship, that's how they get you. You can also get pretty decent phones for a few hundred on eBay. Like a couple year old flagship for less than half the original price. But if you're adamant about having the latest and greatest, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Or you can buy the newest at sticker initially, and when the next model drops, sell it to family for half price as lightly used. Rinse and repeat. They get bargains phones, you get the latest tech.
Miss me with that, I'm disabled and get less than a grand a month for all my expenses. All of the major cell phone brands offer their own financing (and all I've seen is 0% interest for 24 or 36 months), and have for 10+ years. And because you're not buying from a carrier, you aren't locked in, so you can hop to prepaid plans or even MVNOs and enjoy actually massive savings. If you actually needed to, you can get by with service at $10 or less a month, and assuming you are paying $65 a month currently (the going rate for an "unlimited" tmo plan, I don't know the math for groups) you'd save $55 a month, or $1,320 over 2 years. Enough to make your flagship phone "free".
Today's $1,200 handset can be had 24 months from now for 1/4th of that. To forestall the "I broke my phone and need something NOW!" argument I'd point out that phones like the Samsung Galaxy A15 exist, are COMPLETELY usable, and cost less than $200 brand new.
Anyone forking out $1,000+ for a new phone either has some very specific needs or is stuck in a FOMO trap.
I still get charged an activation fee for putting my sim in a new phone. It’s bullshit. I bought my phone outright from Apple. AT&T still charged the $30 activation fee.
Both those are for line activation, not switching devices. My main line currently is with AT&T small biz and I've moved from Pixel 6 Pro > 7 Pro > 8 Pro by just popping the sim in. No charges. When tmo postpaid was my main provider, same thing, charged once initially and that was it. For tmo prepaid, I currently have family on lines and again nothing beyond the initial sim charge. And as I recall, esim is free (as it should be).
If you don't go to a store for assistance or do something weird (try and move from a phone to a tablet or something; and that limit is only for postpaid lines afaik), there should be no fee. It's only when you involve a staff member do they charge you for assistance. Unless tmo changed the policy for postpaid lines in the last 2y, my experience doesn't match yours o.O
Happened to us using cricket also. Forever family plan of 5 lines for $100 so long as the plan is never adjusted.
Well 2 months ago, bill showed for 130. I called and they said they are doing away with that plan. When I pointed out the 'forever' part, they actually pulled a Darth Vader and said they were altering the plan and that I had enjoyed the low cost for much longer than new clients.
Fuck off
Yup, they got me. Signed up for "price for life" fiber for $65/m, didn't take a screenshot so i have no proof. 2 years later, nothing change contract wise, but now my bill is $85/m and I can't fight it, again no proof. They were extremely careful to not have price for life branding on anything after you signed up, no email, no bill, no messages, nothing. Fuck Centurylink.
Now they're trying to get me to switch to Quantum Fiber which apparently is still Centurylink, and the carrot or stick they're using is the price for life rate at Quantum Fiber.. Why would I trust a price for life promo when you reneged on the last price for life promo, in less than a year?
Again, Fuck Centurylink.
Yeah... I switched to an mvno less than a week after I got the text. I'm now paying half of what I used to for the same service (even the same network)
Do note that, depending on what plan you were on before, and what you're on now, it might be the same network but not the same service. Almost all MVNOs are at a lower data priority (sometimes by several levels), most don't offer roaming service, most don't offer international service, and things like (first-party) call/text blocking through an app isn't available.
I have a second line on tello for $6 and it's everything I need for that line, but during the day data is basically useless on that line. The tower near me is massively over capacity - but if you have a tmo line with their top priority (most plans sold directly thru tmo), you'd never know it. Everyone else gets screwed.
Honestly, these "promises" never last. I had ATT at $50/mo for home internet service and was promised it would never go up. Last year it went to $60 and this year $65. I just switched to Xfinity. More Mbps than ATT, promotional price of $20/mo for a year, it goes up to 35 for year 2, then after that the promotion is over and it's $57. After the 3rd year ends it will probably go up, but they've basically given me 1 free year of internet.
Thanks, yes they did misunderstand. If 57 is the "real" price I'm effectively paying for 1 year of service and getting 2. Also there are no penalties for cancellation after the first year, so if i wanted to go through the trouble of finding another ISP, I could walk away then.
Same. We got a super limited deal well over a decade ago that they ran for a single Christmas. While our bill has gone up ever so slightly in that time, the extra cost is all due to misc “fees” rather than the base rate, according to the bills.
T-Mobile is trying to retrofit this bs, gaslighting people, well trying to based purely on greed. This " pay your last months bill " is something new.
It was both implied and understood when I selected that plan that the price would not change as long as we kept the plan. There was no promise or guarantee. This was an agreement.
Because my rate would not change this directly influenced how I did business with T-Mobile AND their competitors by deciding to upgrade, accept a promotion, decline a competitors offer, remain a customer, remain on my plan versus newer ones, etcetera.
Are people being wilfully obtuse or just dense. If the Price Lock / UN- Contract always had a 60 day "promise" this would have been brought up years ago. In fact, it states (ed) the opposite and the rates should not be changing. The way T-Mobile is handling this is disgusting. I could respect them more had they said " we are breaking the terms we proctored to you and will pay all penalities and fines associated both civil and arbitration, we also recognize how this violates consumer trust, we are officially the company we keep " - The Re-Carrier
After how fucking god awful the Sprint merger was handled I don't think I can trust t-mobile to do anything right
I'm surprised I havent read from the comments how funny it is: Of course I know it wasn't a true restriction, after all its a man made program; however, isn't it convenient for years T-Mobile told customers those plans had restrictions, line caps that could not be changed, saying they couldn't make changes to the plan and you would have to switch plans to add more lines.....
Yet, they are able to raise price as it fits them... Comical and pathetic.
Self imposed limitations....
fiduciary duty requires that directors of corporations protect the interests of shareholders’ investments—including maximizing profits where reasonable and within the bounds of the law.
even if technically illegal on paper (which i’m not sure it is), so long as there is no enforcement or accountability, t-mobile and similar entities have literally no reason do do better. they are literally just holding up their end of the law.
in other words, this unfair treatment isn’t just one of many unfortunate flukes. it is literally baked into the system as a requirement.
So they had a price lock guarantee that would stop your phone lines from increasing in price. And as far as I am aware, they stuck to that. Some people thought they had that when they actually had signed up before that point. If they had ended up signing up before that point, then they were on Uncontract, which says that they will pay your last month's bill if you decide to leave.
No, the contract and ToS for the uncontract says it’s the same price guarantee as the price-lock. It says so in the article.
Yeah, I guess I should have read the specific article before really commenting on it. However, I generally follow the carriers and several YouTube channels about them, so sometimes information can get a little bit scrambled.