Jump to content

Talk:T-Mobile US/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

T-Mobile US or T-Mobile USA

I've noticed on the T-Mobile website that the company refers to itself as "T-Mobile USA, Inc.". Is T-Mobile USA a subsidiary of T-Mobile US or is the real company name "T-Mobile USA, Inc."? Jesant13 (talk) 04:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Given the consistent use of "T-Mobile USA" on T-Mobile's US website, I've moved the article to T-Mobile USA. - BilCat (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

I'm planning in the next week or so to take a picture of the headquarters in Bellevue to use instead of the store in San Jose. -- 12.116.162.162 19:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Major changes completed

I cleaned up the whole article, but that meant some major changes. I wanted it to be as transparent as possible, so I did it section by section.

The changes were based on a fork I made a few days ago. I tried to make sure I wasn't loosing anything by checking what changed recently, but I may have accidentally lost somethings. If so, I apologies and ask that you let me know and reinsert the removed thoughts. Hope this is helpful! - Davandron | Talk 16:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting data to include?

The financial statement has the following info that might benefit the article:

  • of 26.877 million customers, 4.253 million are prepaid (~16%)
  • for 2006, the number of customers grew by 13%
  • They have revenues of ~$53 per month per customer
  • It costs them ~$300 to acquire a new customer, primarily in "subsidy loss" (aka paying for the device and accessories)
  • contract customers used an average of 1,150 mins/month in 07Q2, and that number is up 10% over the same period last year.

What does the group think? - Davandron | Talk 13:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's notable, and encyclopedic. BURNyA 15:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

question the article stats that

"As part of its winnings, T-Mobile gained nationwide coverage of 10 MHz or 20 MHz, with numerous areas being supplemented with addition licenses. Examples include New York City, Chicago, and Boston where T-Mobile acquired 30 MHz (one-third) of the available spectrum, or San Francisco, Houston, and Miami where they acquired 40 MHz (45%) of the available spectrum."

But the statement of "Boston where T-Mobile acquired 30 MHz (one-third) of the available spectrum"

30 MHz is not the same thing as 1/3 of the available spectrum. 30 MHz is the something as 3.0 GHz it is a Radio frequency not a % of the radio spectrum I think what it is trying to so is they now own 1/3 of the market on the 1.0 GHz /2.0 GHz spectrum also "San Francisco, Houston, and Miami where they acquired 40 MHz (45%) of the available spectrum." is running in to the same problem. thank you tauri5663

i went in fix the wording to make it more inline with what the person was trying to say —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.166.180.133 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.43.162.146 (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

MyFaves section removed, Propose plans section

I removed the following

== myFaves ==
myFaves is a T-Mobile money saving rate plan that allows each customer unlimited calls to any five US phone numbers, including landlines. On its myFaves phones appears 5 icons which allow easy one touch calling, texting and photo sharing.

Because it seemed an unbalanced addition to the article. Is it notable? If so, does it belong in a section detailing plans? - Davandron | Talk 17:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Actually, MyFaves and the idea of a List of people you could call for free was pioneered and invented by T-mobile, as they were the first carrier to have such a plan on the market

Fair use rationale for Image:Voicestream logo.jpg

Image:Voicestream logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Starbucks

According to T-Mobile PR STATEMENT REGARDING T-MOBILE HOTSPOT AND STARBUCKS: T-Mobile devices & customers will retain access to Starbucks hotspots for "years to come", indeed the Starbucks hotspot network will remain substantially T-Mobile based throughout 2008 and access will be grandfathered after that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.16.234 (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we also update the hotspot section?? The T-Mobile hotspot service isn't offered in near as many locations as it used to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.168.131.218 (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-Standard 3G

Should it be mentioned that their implimentation of 3G service is non standard? They used 2100 and 1700 whereas most unlocked Nokia Handsets as well as Motorola handsets use WCDMA 2100 for 3g. AT&T implimtented it in the standard way, the same way they are doing it in Europe. This means that one has to use a T-Mobile handset to access the 3G, something that many might be unwilling to do, considering most people choose GSM for handset freedom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.46.138 (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

t-mobile usa uses wcdma IV where they use 1.7ghz for the upstream and 2.1ghz for the downstream ATT uses 850mhz and 1.9ghz for there GSM and 3g traffic . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.69.223.249 (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Security Issues

Undid deletion since there was no basis for it. Added Sidekick link. Jhansonxi (talk • contribs) 02:46, 3 June 2009

Undid deletion again and added pre-paid customer SSN requirement complaint and ref. Jhansonxi (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Major work needed on article

This article needs major work as it cites past events as upcoming (see "Network" as an example, or the paragraph on customer service directly above it). It also needs rewriting numerous portions (for instance the section on GPRS and EDGE... which should be updated to reflect T-Mobile's move to 3G, and their very recent upgrade to the HSPA 7.2 3G speeds).

If I have the chance, (and if no one beats me to it) I will start on it...

RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 22:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Beyond that, there's a horrible amount of material that either came directly from marketing or was lifted from promotional material (e.g. There's no reason to write 'there are NO contracts' with respect to the Even More Plus plans). A bit else has the same feel. Cnj (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
"Major work needed" is an understatement. The entire Article is one big ad filled with meaningless marketing jargon. It really needs to be deleted and rewritten from scratch. Rahul (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Tell me what needs changing? Viper Matrix Wireless (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I will give you two quick examples. In the introduction, it says "T-Mobile USA tends to compete on value...". Where is the citation for this "value" claim? The citation for the entire sentence, a review entitled 'Apples-to-Apples Comparison of the "Big Four" U.S. Wireless Providers' Calling Plans' in the website www.thewirelessreport.com, nowhere claims, let alone justifies, that T-Mobile competes on value. And even if it did, it's from Feb 2006, almost five years ago, and we know that cellphone plans change greatly every few months. Furthermore, that review itself is seriously defective, as it (a) ignores taxes/fees/surcharges, which are not identical across all carriers, (b) ignores prepaid plans entirely, and (c) is only relevant to a specific type and degree of cellphone use. Please bear in mind that this is just one example, so fixing this would not fix the Article. Second example: "Historically, they have also pioneered new features." This sounds like original research to me. No citations given. Everybody pioneers their own new features; what makes T-Mobile more of a pioneer than the competition? Rahul (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Seems to me that the wrong citation was provided. I do know back in 2006 that it was said "T-Mobile USA tends to compete on value". However, times have changed and I don't hear that any longer. They have pioneered major features in the past. However, who ever wrote that did not mention what features they invented. So I am seeing it as blunt. I believe that any carrier invents a feature that is greatly noticeable that it should be talked about but with citations and more details to it explaining what the feature does and such. I wouldn't say T-Mobile is more of a pioneer but it should be there because they are the ones who invented it. Also, I have noticed that are things missing from T-Mobile USA's page but it really needs to be re-written in which will include new things that we're not on the previous wiki page. I have written a few things on the page myself and when I started to write things the page got flagged as an advertisement. As of now i'm trying to figure out how to take what I have written and turn into something encyclopedic. Viper Matrix Wireless (talk) 03:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Largest 4G Network in the US?

T-Mobile is now claiming on their latest TV ad that they have the largest 4G network in the nation...Dreammaker182 (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

fake 4G (DC-HSPA+ 42mb) still shares 3G network, LTE (4G) is a new radio network that does not share 3G (up to DC-HSPA+), At&t do it as well, this also brings up the main article stating 4G on 3G technologies in article when it should be called 3G (calling 3G 4G does not make 3G faster its just pure marketing rubush) and should not be in the article apart from a Note about fake 4G rename and why Leexgx (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Misleading statement in article

Article states On April 9, 2010, the report was released in German at a press conference at the German headquarters of Deutsche Telekom in Bonn, and stirred up considerable media feedback. This leads to the impression that the press conference was actually at the HQ of DT which it was not. It was only in the city of Bonn, which is home to the HQ of DT. -- 178.202.229.63 (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Peacock words

Can we remind everyone to stop being emotional about a cell phone company? –TashTish (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Labor Relations section needs significant revision - WP:UNDUE

The information in the Labor relations section appears to be accurate, reasonably well cited, historic and encyclopedic. However, it is also one-sided and is not in keeping with the guidelines described in WP:UNDUE. This section describes labor's view of the situation exclusively. The section is in need of significant revision to add the viewpoints of the company and the employees who do/did not want union representation. Additionally, it would be appropriate to reduce the size of the section as it is unnecessarily long and detailed.

TL/DR the Labor relations section needs to be shorter and "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint" per WP:UNDUE. Ch Th Jo (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Products?

Would the products not surely be things like "GSM/UMTS voice and data services" or something similar? After all, the service is their primary product, not what's there at the moment. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I see it differently. Here are my thoughts. You refer to GSM/UMTS as both products and services above, and I want to start with a clarification. Regardless of industry, it's one or the other. Services are ephemeral and/or conceptual. You can't hold call waiting service in your hand, for example. Products are the things you can touch or break if you drop them on the ground, including but not necessarily limited to mobile handsets, desk sets, tablet computers, routers and wireless broadband data sticks.
A product or service is something marketed and/or sold by a company. Put another way, they are things you can actually purchase (or in the case of post paid wireless services, subscribe to). If you access t-mobile.com or go into a T-Mobile retail store, you can't buy GSM/UMTS voice and data service because they aren't listed or offered for sale. GSM and UMTS are just technologies that enable the delivery of a services like voice telephony, SMS messaging and Internet access which are marketed as services under brand names like Even More™ 1000 Talk + Unlimited Text + 200 MB Data. You can't buy "UMTS broadband data access" but you can subscribe to a service called Even More 5 GB webConnect® Overage Free Plan.
In the case of T-Mobile, products currently offered for sale include the T-Mobile G2x™ with Google™ or Samsung Vibrant™ mobile handsets or the T-Mobile® Jet™ 2.0 data stick. Someone manufactured them. T-Mobile sells them. You can pick them up and buy them.
GSM and UMTS are definitely part of the T-Mobile story, but those concepts belong in the network section of the article, not the product and service section. On a higher level, you could argue that GSM and UMTS are neither products nor services, but standards. Ch Th Jo (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
But T-Mobile doesn't manufacture them, other companies do. In that regard, T-Mobile is a retailer like Wal-Mart or Macy's. So listing them as products in the infobox is not really the intended use of that field; T-Mobile isn't the producer, they're a retailer and service provider. Just my 2¢ oknazevad (talk) 04:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC) PS, please don't put all the trademark symbols in the text; this isn't a press release, and it's not the way people actually read English. Likewise, the wikilinks to AT&T don't need the "Inc." on them, per WP:COMMONNAME. oknazevad (talk) 04:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Some stuff to comtemplate: Nike doesn't manufacture shoes, are you saying that Nike doesn't sell products? Macy's doesn't own any clothing factories, do you truly believe that Macy's does not sell any products? Apple doesn't manufacture anything it sells. What are Apple's products? Clearly, a business doesn't have to be a manufacturer to sell products. If, for example, the T-Mobile myTouch 4G isn't a product, what is it?
According to the documentation that accompanies the infobox company template, that is the exact use of the field.
I didn't put the TM symbols in, they were already there when I cut and pasted the information over from the T-Mobile web pages. This is the talk page, not the article itself, so it doesn't matter if I did include them, anyway. What's important on the talk page is the ideas, not the formatting.
WP:COMMONNAME shortcuts to an article titled "Article Titles" and the text of that article is very clear that COMMONNAME applies to document titles only. COMMONNAME has nothing to do with names that appear in body text. When writing about businesses, the full legal name matters. For example, AT&T Inc. is not the same as AT&T Corporation. Without the distinction of Inc. or Corporation, the article would be unclear as just which AT&T entity is involved. Ch Th Jo (talk) 06:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Apple, Nike, et al are manufacturers; they may contract out much of the work to overseas factories, but they are working for Nike, Apple, etc. Yes Macy's sells products, but most are manufactured by other companies.
As for the Inc, they're just not needed; the unadorned term is the simplest way to refer to the company as a whole. The T-Mobile operations are likely to be under AT&T Mobility, as the wireless subsidiary, but the exact nature is pending, and the likelihood that a reader would think of another AT&T subsidiary is slim. The point of bringing up COMMONNAME is the underlying KISS principle; in common speech people don't use Inc, etc. The chance of confusion is slim, and there's no need for going beyond the simplest, most common usage. oknazevad (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
My responses to your ideas are below. The TL/DR version is: Products are things you can buy, it doesn't matter who made them. If you don't own a factory, you might be a designer, engineer, marketer and distributor but you are not a manufacturer. WP:MOSFOLLOW provides specific guidance regarding names - WP:COMMONNAME does not apply here. WP:MOS guides our writing, not "common speech".
The point you seem to be missing on products is that one does not have to be a manufacturer to sell products. Products are physical objects that one can purchase - it doesn't matter who made them. T-Mobile and Apple are both retailers selling products in their stores and on the web. Neither one of them is a manufacturer. If you don't own a factory, you aren't a manufacturer, its pretty cut and dry. If you hire a contract manufacturer to manufacture your products, that doesn't make you a manufacturer. If a company has to contract out manufacturing, it may be a designer, engineer, marketer and seller of products, but the company is not a manufacturer of them. Looking at it another way, when you have work done on your house, hiring a contractor doesn't make you a contractor. Like Nike and Apple, you're just an idea and a checkbook.
COMMONNAME apples to titles only. You are trying to extend that logic inappropriately. KISS does not give you license to remove factual information because you think that the information is an "adornment". The facts are what they are, we don't get to play philosophical games with them. This is an encyclopedia article, it needs to be accurate. You can't be accurate if you leave out critical information and cause confusion.
WP:MOSFOLLOW says "Many points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names, can be decided by observing the style adopted by high-quality sources when considering a stylistic question. Unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, follow the usage of reliable English-language secondary sources." The Wall Street Journal refers to Deutsche Telekom AG, AT&T Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Sullivan & Cromwell LLP - all in the same article. In business writing, it doesn't get much higher in quality than the Wall Street Journal.
Here's a specific example that illustrates my point. Above, in one of your entries, you refer to AT&T Mobility. You are confused and that's a problem. AT&T Mobility has nothing to do with the T-Mobile story thus far. The purchase offer comes from AT&T Inc., not AT&T Mobility LLC. The Justice Dept. and FCC filings, the lobbing efforts and the press releases are all being done by Inc., not Mobility LLC. That's an important difference. You are an editor of this article, so you certainly know more about what is going on than "casual" readers of WP. But if you, as an editor, are confused, then I'm sure casual readers are confused as well. The facts are what they are. We record them and we cite references to back them up. Don't simplify things to the point that you lose meaning and cause confusion, or as in this example, don't simply things to the point that you fail to help casual readers by adding meaning that removes confusion.
Common speech doesn't guide our writing here, we go by the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. (Ending on a more humorous note: In common speech, people don't cite reliable sources to back up everything that comes out of their mouth, people speak in phrases and sentence fragments and sometimes use profanity. It's probably for the better that common speech doesn't guide our writing, especially my common speech.) Ch Th Jo (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

@home killed

T-mobile no longer offers T-mobile @home service.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.35.116 (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

FALSE, or at least incomplete.
T-Mobile no longer offers it as a new feature or product for customers. However, those who already have it are continuing to use it; i.e.: Grandfathered in.

75.72.193.10 (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Let me correct my statement: T-mobile no longer offers T-mobile @home service --74.72.35.116 (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Obvious typo in article, but I'm uncertain how to fix

In the "4G/LTE upgrade" section, a change was made between 00:13, 7 March 2012 and 12:33, 24 March 2012. This change included the following: "in order to achieve compatibility with othecivet works and phones in the USA".

Clearly, "othecivet" is not a word, but I've no idea what the person making the change intended to say. I'm not well-versed in Wikipedia editing, and am uncertain how to mark this to bring it to somebody's attention. (Just spent 20 minutes trying to ascertain if there's a "fix me" tag of some kind, to no avail.) Apologies for not fixing this myself, but I'm not entirely sure how best to do so. I don't want to just roll back the user's change, as other worthwhile changes were made.

So, I mark it here, in hopes somebody will see this, and have some idea what the sentence should read. Thanks! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.13.66 (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

VoiceStream redirect

There's seems to be a dispute as to whether VoiceStream Wireless should be a redirect to this page or it's own article. I oppose a separate article. Firstly, because it is still the same company. It was acquired by Deutsche Telekom and its name chanhed to match the international branding, but its still the same continuous operation and, as far as I can see from regulatory filings, the same corporate charter. Even the infobox here uses the 1994 founding date As the other proposed article is a short article at best, with only four paragraphs once the meta-content like the infobox and the parts redundant to this article are removed), it's an unneeded fork. It's completely analogous to Cingular Wireless being a redirect to AT&T Mobility, which was done based on the same reasoning. oknazevad (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no "dispute" because you are refusing to engage in the process. Despite my requests for discussion, there is nothing on the VoiceStream Wireless article talk page - you didn't make any effort at all. The VoiceStream article did not suddenly appear and is not new. You are in fact trying to change the status quo and are therefore required to state your reasons. You did not seek any discussion or input. You have repeatedly imposed your individual will without discussion. You have ignored requests to discuss the change. VoiceStream existed as a separate entity for years before the merger and has its own unique history. Just because two companies merge, that does not establish a "rule" that articles should be combined. I've read WP:FORK and it supports creation of a second article - I don't think you've actually read WP:FORK or you wouldn't have cited it - WP:FORK hurts your case. There are other wireless provider articles and many company articles that have handled mergers differently - ATT/Cingular is only one example and does not dictate how things are handled elsewhere. (It's my opinion that combining those articles was a poor choice.) Additionally, that decision was made by just a few people and hardly represent consensus decision making at its best and shouldn't be held up as authoritative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.66.248 (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge in T-Mobile USA 3G?

Looks like most of the content there is already in this article, and this article has more up-to-date content, because nobody bothered to update T-Mobile USA 3G until I came along today, only to realize the very issue I'm flagging here. -- Dandv(talk|contribs) 08:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Go for it; it's an unneeded fork. oknazevad (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

J.D. Power and Associates Rankings

I see someone put the follwing into the Article ". As of 2011, J.D. Power and Associates, a global marketing-information-services firm, ranked the company highest among major wireless carriers for retail-store satisfaction four years consecutively and highest for wireless customer care two years consecutively." It seems that is no longer true see here, here, here, here, here and there is nothing on the T-Mobile website that even mentions any awards from J.D Power and Associates UnknownElement (Talk) 01:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on T-Mobile US. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on T-Mobile US. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on T-Mobile US. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on T-Mobile US. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Attempted mergers with Sprint

I think this section needs to be update as the application has been accepted and the pleading cycle has stated, as several documents have been filed in releation to the merger. 75.107.198.37 (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracies: Roaming and Phone Plans

there are some inaccuracies in the messaging for mobile without borders under roaming, and new phone plans offered by t-mobile including military, 55+, etc. i've been trying to edit to correct these but my changes keep getting reversed. Please help asap or please stop changing my edits!

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgjo10 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


Some proposed changes

•Information to be added or removed:

Extended content

Under "roaming": "On July 15, 2015, T-Mobile launched Mobile Without Borders, a service included with all new T-Mobile plans and available as an add-on to grandfathered or promotional plans. With Mobile Without Borders, customers can stay connected when traveling in Canada and Mexico with unlimited talk, text and data and up to 5GB of 4G LTE (or a maximum of high-speed data allotment, whichever comes first). Mobile Without Borders is included on T-Mobile ONE, Simple Choice North America, or with a qualifying feature on certain prepaid plans. After 5GB of high-speed data is used in Mexico and Canada (or high-speed data allotment is reached, whichever comes first), customers stay connected with unlimited data at Simple Global speeds (up to 128kbps for most plans or 256kbps with T-Mobile ONE Plus)." <INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE UPDATED>

In the "products and services" section, add these paragraphs: T-Mobile Essentials In August 2018, T-Mobile introduced T-Mobile Essentials, a tailor-made phone plan for customers who just want the basics. Unlimited talk, text and data at a lower price than T-Mobile ONE for $30/line for 4 lines with AutoPay, plus taxes and fees. <INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE ADDED>

T-Mobile ONE for Military In April 2018, T-Mobile introduced T-Mobile ONE for Military – the biggest military discount in wireless. T-Mobile ONE for Military is 20% off the first line and Half Off up to five additional voice lines. The first line is $55 with AutoPay – normally $70. And it’s Half Off after that, up to six lines – just $25 line and $10 per line for the third through sixth lines with AutoPay. With this plan, on average a family of four can save $665 per year. It also includes everything included in the T-Mobile ONE plan at no extra cost. <INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE ADDED>

Unlimited 55+ In August 2017, T-Mobile introduced the Unlimited 55+ plan. With this, customers ages 55 years and older can get two lines of T-Mobile ONE for $60 with AutoPay – all with unlimited talk, text, and LTE data. <INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE ADDED>

T-Mobile ONE In August 2016, T-Mobile introduced T-Mobile ONE. It combines unlimited voice minutes, text messaging, and high-speed data. This plan also includes regulatory taxes and fees included in the price; Netflix Standard 2-screen plan at no extra charge (with 2+ qualifying lines); stream unlimited video at DVD-quality; stream unlimited music; texting and data abroad in 140+ countries and destinations; in-flight texting and one hour of Wi-Fi on Gogo-enabled flights; unlimited in Mexico and Canada; and, mobile hotspot data at 3G speeds. T-Mobile ONE is $70 for one line; $60/line for two lines with Netflix included; $47/line for three lines with Netflix included; and $35/line for four lines with Netflix included. <INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE UPDATED>

•Explanation of issue: the first change updates factual inaccuracies about what Mobile Without Borders is and adds in what the plan includes. T-Mobile has also added three new rate plans to its product line, and these needed to be added for transparency of all T-Mobile offers. Additionally, T-Mobile ONE plan had inaccuracies about the program that includes Netflix, so updated/accurate language has been added there. These changes make this page accurate and encompasses the full information about the company's products/services

•References supporting change: https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/roaming https://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phone-plans https://www.t-mobile.com/offers/binge-on-streaming-video

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballard10 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Reply 18-DEC-2018

  Edit request declined  

  1. Information on plan details, including pricing and discount options, are generally not allowed in articles, per WP:NOTACATALOG.
  2. Please remember to sign all posts made on the talk page.

Regards,  Spintendo  19:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Reply 19-DEC-2018

if pricing and discount options are not allowed, how are there already pricing details in the wikipedia page before i requested edits? trying to update new plans that t-mobile has released that is not updated on the page. additionally, updating information/context about mobile without borders, which is currently inaccurate --Ballard10 (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Move Merger History to Own Article?

Hi all, I wanted to see how others feel about moving the history of the Sprint merger to its own article? The failed ATT merger has its own article and it has far less history. Appreciate your thoughts. ~ Dogojosho (talk) 07:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. You might work it up in draftspace to show what it would look like, and give others a chance to work on it too. - BilCat (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

I started a draft. Find it here: Draft:Merger of Sprint Corporation and T-Mobile USA

Thanks! ~ Dogojosho (talk) 08:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 10 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Closed as moved to "T-Mobile US". buidhe 01:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


T-Mobile USA → T-Mobile US – This page was moved without discussion by BilCat 8 days ago, but I believe that was an error. Looking at the page log, this article was moved from T-Mobile USA to T-Mobile US back in 2013 when the company's name was legally changed. Looking over their Investor Relations page, and their latest financial statements, the legal name of the company is "T-Mobile U.S. Inc." (or "T-Mobile US, Inc."), not "T-Mobile USA. As far as whether to use "U.S." or "US", since T-Mobile uses both versions, I think it's best to use "U.S." as that is generally what is used in Wikipedia titles by default when abbreviating United States. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 20:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Comments - I made the move based on what I thought was reliable information, namely the company's own website, along with news reports this week that used "USA". The title is even found at the bottom of the Investor Relations page! Perhaps we should just hold off another move for a few weeks and see what happens. Also, WP:NOTUSA doesn't apply to proper names, as the guideline explicitly states. - BilCat (talk) 07:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I assume that you're referring to the "©2002 - 2020 T-MOBILE USA, INC" at the bottom of their websites. That doesn't seem as official to me as their most recent official government filings that list their current name as "T-Mobile US". Unless you have something more official that that lists their name as "T-Mobile USA", I still believe the page should be moved back to where it was previously. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – I concur with BilCat. I was going to comment on the move as well for the same reason the OP states. Partially due to, from what I understand, T-Mobile USA does exist as a wholly own subsidiary brand for the “shell company” of T-Mobile US, who is the parent of T-Mobile USA and now Sprint, meaning this page should be titled T-Mobile US because that is the incorporated name for the main company. But as I stated above, I agree that due to all the changes happening to the company with the merger it is best to wait on any further moves or page name changes. ~ Dogojosho (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. The name change from 2013 was prompted by the merger of T-Mobile USA (not to be confused with Deutsche Telekom's other T-Mobile subsidiaries) with MetroPCS, which was structured as a reverse takeover, with the former MetroPCS taking the new "T-Mobile US Inc" (no periods) name while acquiring the subsidiary T-Mobile USA from its parent company Deutsche Telekom, which in turn assumed a majority ownership of the combined company (the remaining ownership remained publicly traded, as Metro had been before the merger). That hasn't significantly changed with this merger, which consists of T-Mobile US acquiring Sprint from its recent parent company SoftBank in exchange for SoftBank getting a minority stake in T-Mobile US. So the parent company is actually T-Mobile US, and this article should be moved back to T-Mobile US (no periods). oknazevad (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Propose Move - The name is officially registered as "T-Mobile US, Inc." [1] . It is the "Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter" [2]. I agree that it should be moved to T-Mobile US to reflect this.

References

  1. ^ "T-Mobile US Form 3:INITIAL STATEMENT OF BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF SECURITIES" (PDF). Security Exchange Commisssion.
  2. ^ "T-Mobile US Form 10-K". Security Exchange Commission.
No, none of that's relevant. This is a company's name, and the question is if that company is named "T-Mobile US" (it is) or "T-Mobile USA" (it used to be). That we eschew "USA" normally is irrelevant, and spelling out "United States" would be making up an erroneous title. The reasons those other T-Mobile sister companies have those titles is because those are the names of those companies, not just describing where they operate. oknazevad (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Further evidence, they just published an article today about a network launched and mentioned the company name at the beginning of the article as "T-Mobile US, Inc". This is a post-merger article using the T-Mobile US name. Find the article here: [1] ~ Dogojosho (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Per Dogojosho's recent comments, it's evident that the "new" company is using "T-Mobile US". That's what I was waiting for. I do have page mover rights, so I can make the moves myself. There haven't been any "Opposes" here, and so procedurally there shouldn't be any issues. - BilCat (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comments - As I was the person who made most of the initial moves, I'm not going to close the discussion myself, but once that's done, I'll make the moves. - BilCat (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Request @Buidhe: As a neutral party, can you close this discussion? All the objectors now support the move. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Essentials Correction

The Essentials section quotes "prioritize" during network congestion, however my reading of the fine print for Essentials plans shows that the proper word would be "deprioritize." As of this writing, the page states:

During congestion, customers using >50GB/mo. and Essentials customers may notice lower speeds than other customers due to data prioritization.

As my edit has been reverted for "vandalism" by a bot (BilCat), along with an accompanying threat of removal of editing privileges, I am unable to make the necessary correction. Ccfreak2k (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

BilCat is not a bot. He's an administrator. That's said, I think the warning was an overreaction, and an error. In his defense, you didn't use an edit summary to explain why you were making the change, which made it look like it was just someone swapping the meaning of a sentence, a common form of vandalism. I'd advise you to make sure to use edit summaries so others can understand your intent. As for the edit itself, I rephrased the sentence to make it clear that the Essentials plan customers are the ones who are not a priority (that's the trade off in the plan: lower price, but you have to deal with less priority for your use during peak periods.) oknazevad (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:T-Mobile_US/Archive_1&oldid=1249785115"