That's only for 4G (HSPA+ which some people don't consider "real" 4G) speeds, but the actual data usage is still unlimited. And you can get 100 minutes with unlimited text and data for $30/month with 4G speeds up to 5 GB and probably use VoIP instead of cellular for most calls.
And I would be spending $300 for a Nexus 4 from the Play Store, not $500 for a GS2.
So how does Virgin Mobile compare? I haven't looked at their plans yet, so what do you have?
ramjet73
Well, if the 4G coverage isn't available or doesn't work well then I guess WiFi is an alternative, but it's a PITA having to move from hotspot to hotspot when using mobile data. That's what WiMax/4G was supposed to address but now that Sprint's phasing that out and going with LTE that I won't be able to use, the T-Mobile $30 plan with 5GB at HSPA+ speeds looks pretty good to me, as long as they allow VoIP.Service really is lacking but it works( and that's what wifi is for lol)
$35 for 300 min, unlimited data and texts? How can you really beat that?
Well, if the 4G coverage isn't available or doesn't work well then I guess WiFi is an alternative, but it's a PITA having to move from hotspot to hotspot when using mobile data. That's what WiMax/4G was supposed to address but now that Sprint's phasing that out and going with LTE that I won't be able to use, the T-Mobile $30 plan with 5GB at HSPA+ speeds looks pretty good to me, as long as they allow VoIP.
I checked the VM website and if I understand correctly, the 4G limit for VM is 2.5GB/month unless you have the $15 hotspot option and then you get 3.5GB. Although it only includes 100 minutes, that makes the $30 T-Mobile plan look pretty good if I can use those minutes for incoming calls and use a VoIP app like GrooveIP for outgoing.
Just thinking out loud here, and I appreciate your input. BTW, I'm looking at the new T-Mobile pre-paid plans and I think they are different than the ones requiring a contract.
ramjet73
I think getting a free or heavily subsidised phone on a mandatory two year contract is very similar buying a car on a hire purchase or instalment plan. You get the phone or car, but it's not actually yours until the payments are completed. Either you complete the loan payments or you complete the contract.
If you default on a car loan, they repossess the car. And if you default on a two year carrier contract, they can blacklist the ESN or IMEI, rendering it useless. That's why you sometimes get blacklisted ESN and IMEI phones on Ebay, that do have outstanding finance issues, like there's monies owed to a carrier.
If you pay the ETF, that's it the phone is yours, there's no more contract and payment obligations to the carrier, surely you can then legally unlock it?
That's only for 4G (HSPA+ which some people don't consider "real" 4G) speeds, but the actual data usage is still unlimited. And you can get 100 minutes with unlimited text and data for $30/month with 4G speeds up to 5 GB and probably use VoIP instead of cellular for most calls.
And I would be spending $300 for a Nexus 4 from the Play Store, not $500 for a GS2.
So how does Virgin Mobile compare? I haven't looked at their plans yet, so what do you have?
ramjet73
Exactly.
But the problem is, people can currently just get the subsidized phone, and not pay the bills. The carrier can blacklist it, but that doesn't matter because the person unlocks it and takes it to another carrier (who doesn't care you owe the first carrier money).
This law makes people be accountable, and I support that. You signed the contract, fulfill it.
I agree with this 100%, but my concern is what if the carriers refuse to unlock it if you do buy full retail or fulfill your contract? Since it's illegal to do it yourself, by refusing to unlock it, they force you to stay with them or buy a new device.
That's the only thing I could see anyone being possibly upset over.
I imagine if a carrier did it the BBB/FCC and just about any other acronym you could think of would be all over it. Itd be a PR nightmare.
Yeah, I hope it won't come to that though.
Exactly.
But the problem is, people can currently just get the subsidized phone, and not pay the bills. The carrier will blacklist it, but that doesn't matter because the person unlocks it and takes it to another carrier (who doesn't care you owe the first carrier money).
This law makes people be accountable, and I support that. You signed the contract, fulfill it.
If you pay the etf, you should be good to unlock
We agreed when this thread was still in the Evo V 4G forum that the Library of Congress decision was of little consequence to most users so we started to discuss why one would want to unlock a phone and that led to the carrier discussion.How did we go from unlocking phones to which carrier is the best
BTW, for those interested there's an ongoing thread with this is the android lounge
I hope no one faints, but I'm going to disagree with mikedt! I just don't see how a phone I pay for can belong to anyone but me, regardless of its heavily discounted price. The heavily discounted price is an enticement from the carrier to get me to extend [or, for a new customer, initiate] a contract for service from them, not for the phone, per se.I think getting a free or heavily subsidised phone on a mandatory two year contract is very similar buying a car on a hire purchase or instalment plan. You get the phone or car, but it's not actually yours until the payments are completed. Either you complete the loan payments or you complete the contract.
We agreed when this thread was still in the Evo V 4G forum that the Library of Congress decision was of little consequence to most users so we started to discuss why one would want to unlock a phone and that led to the carrier discussion.
I didn't realize that this type of discussion always had to be conducted in the lounge.
This thread has so many pieces merged together that it's become almost impossible to follow.
ramjet73
Isn't carrier IMEI and ESN blacklisting across all carriers, there's like a central registry or database of blacklisted numbers? So if a phone is blacklisted on say Verizon Wireless, it's also blacklisted for Sprint etc.
I know it's like that in the EU. I'm sure the original intention was to render stolen and missing phones bricked and useless on all carriers.
Years ago in the days of analogue ETACS phones in the UK. It was quite common to change a phone's ESN. A phone's ESN was blacklisted for all carriers in the UK, because of outstanding monies owed and defaulted bill payments. Changing a phone's ESN in those days was quite easy to do, and wasn't illegal either.
Yup.
I hope no one faints, but I'm going to disagree with mikedt! I just don't see how a phone I pay for can belong to anyone but me, regardless of its heavily discounted price. The heavily discounted price is an enticement from the carrier to get me to extend [or, for a new customer, initiate] a contract for service from them, not for the phone, per se.
I've never leased a vehicle [I BUY them--I like knowing they're mine!], but I see no analogy here at all. Again, with phones it's the service contract the company is really selling the customer, not the phone. With a car loan or lease, it's the car itself that's being sold to the customer, not a service.
I know from experience that upgrading a phone via my carrier yields me a new phone, which is mine outright, plus a contract I agree to for phone service. I've never broken said contract*, but even if I did the phone would still be mine because that was our agreement; I would, however, still be responsible for paying for the service contract, whether I'm using said service or not.
* I've been with AT&T so long that I've watched it go from AT&T to Cingular and back to AT&T! I don't break contracts.
Oh yes, I am confused! I have placed several posts and my stats never change. What am I doing wrong?
Sorry, I'm trying to catch up and piece together the threads that have been mashed together so I hope this hasn't already been covered.If you pay the etf that's the end of the contract and you should be able to unlock it then.
There's no reason to unlock the phone while under contract.
I didn't realize that this type of discussion always had to be conducted in the lounge.
This thread has so many pieces merged together that it's become almost impossible to follow.
Sorry, I'm trying to catch up and piece together the threads that have been mashed together so I hope this hasn't already been covered.
If I buy a phone outright, whether it is from the carrier or another source, and activate on a line I have under contract, I would like to be able to pass the phone it is replacing on to someone else for use on any compatible network.
I'm still fulfilling my contract for the service and I haven't seen anything that says a subsidized phone is the property of the carrier. As has already been stated the subsidy is compensation for committing to the contract for the service, and as long as that contract is fulfilled I should be able to have the carrier unlock that phone or be allowed to do it myself if they can't/won't.
I've never heard of a carrier requiring a phone to be returned to them if your account gets closed for excessive roaming or data usage, have you?
ramjet73
Sorry, I'm trying to catch up and piece together the threads that have been mashed together so I hope this hasn't already been covered.
If I buy a phone outright, whether it is from the carrier or another source, and activate on a line I have under contract, I would like to be able to pass the phone it is replacing on to someone else for use on any compatible network.
I'm still fulfilling my contract for the service and I haven't seen anything that says a subsidized phone is the property of the carrier. As has already been stated the subsidy is compensation for committing to the contract for the service, and as long as that contract is fulfilled I should be able to have the carrier unlock that phone or be allowed to do it myself if they can't/won't.
I've never heard of a carrier requiring a phone to be returned to them if your account gets closed for excessive roaming or data usage, have you?
I hope no one faints, but I'm going to disagree with mikedt!
I just don't see how a phone I pay for can belong to anyone but me, regardless of its heavily discounted price. The heavily discounted price is an enticement from the carrier to get me to extend [or, for a new customer, initiate] a contract for service from them, not for the phone, per se.
I've never leased a vehicle [I BUY them--I like knowing they're mine!], but I see no analogy here at all.
Again, with phones it's the service contract the company is really selling the customer, not the phone. With a car loan or lease, it's the car itself that's being sold to the customer, not a service.
I know from experience that upgrading a phone via my carrier yields me a new phone, which is mine outright, plus a contract I agree to for phone service. I've never broken said contract*, but even if I did the phone would still be mine because that was our agreement; I would, however, still be responsible for paying for the service contract, whether I'm using said service or not.
So you are saying that even if I were to pay full price for an upgrade phone from the carrier I would not have the right to unlock the phone being replaced and use it on another carrier until the contract ends? That doesn't sound right to me since that phone would no longer be used to access the service under contract. The carrier can (and probably would) blacklist the upgrade phone if the contract wasn't fulfilled.No, the phone just gets blacklisted until the money owed is paid. This law prevents that person from hopping to another carrier and avoiding paying the bill
If a carrier ends the contract, that's usually the end of it right there.
We've been tracking upcoming products and ranking the best tech since 2007. Thanks for trusting our opinion: we get rewarded through affiliate links that earn us a commission and we invite you to learn more about us.