Talk:T-Mobile US

Please go to

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Tell me what needs changing? Viper Matrix Wireless (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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¢

WP:COMMONNAME. oknazevad (talk) 04:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There's seems to be a dispute as to whether

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140218111505/http://prepaid-phones.t-mobile.com:80/prepaid-additional-services to http://prepaid-phones.t-mobile.com/prepaid-additional-services

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.

• 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.—

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131211180641/http://www.metropcs.com:80/metro/PhonesandMore? to http://www.metropcs.com/metro/PhonesandMore
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120112152504/http://www.metropcs.com/ to http://www.metropcs.com/

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.

• 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.—

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140422170127/http://investor.t-mobile.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=177745&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1887921&highlight= to http://investor.t-mobile.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=177745&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1887921&highlight=
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141031023143/http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251624&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1903058&highlight=&AID=11031750&PID=6147683 to http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251624&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1903058&highlight=&AID=11031750&PID=6147683
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131102033550/http://www.marketwatch.com/story/t-mobile-to-hold-magenta-saturday-sale-with-smartphones-and-tablets-for-as-little-as-0-4999-net-down-2011-11-15 to http://www.marketwatch.com/story/t-mobile-to-hold-magenta-saturday-sale-with-smartphones-and-tablets-for-as-little-as-0-4999-net-down-2011-11-15

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.—

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19990504&slug=2958742
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.t-mobile.com/Company/CompanyInfo.aspx?tp=Abt_Tab_CompanyOverview&tsp=Abt_Sub_History
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Orders/2001/fcc01142.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.t-mobile.com/Company/CompanyInfo.aspx?tp=Abt_Tab_CompanyOverview
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=19358&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=31703&mapcode=corporate%7cfinancial
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://support.t-mobile.com/knowbase/root/public/tm22696.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130312063201/https://selfcare.hotspot.t-mobile.com/locations/viewLocationMap.do to https://selfcare.hotspot.t-mobile.com/locations/viewLocationMap.do
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://businesscenter.jdpower.com/news/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2011016
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://businesscenter.jdpower.com/news/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2011010
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://buywapsite.com/index.php/2021/02/13/best-mobile-2021/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachchidanand chaudhary 1 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Some or all of the changes may be promotional in tone.

•Information to be added or removed:

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

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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi,

I started a draft. Find it here:

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

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

• Lowering The Bar Cover 2010.09.22.jpg

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• Lowering The Bar Cover 2010.09.22.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They keep having data breaches. What's wrong with this company? 20 Jan 2023, the news is reporting yet another data breach again? When I left at the time of the Sprint merger they were at about 3rd or 4th. They had one after that. Now this? CaribDigita (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was Ultra successfully acquired by T-Mobile US or is it still ongoing? If it has been completed is it going to be a subsidiary or division? WiinterU (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some mention of the T-Mobile "Digits" service would be welcome. Ericfluger (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]