• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

i wouldn't mind if metro evolved into a contract carrier.

h4x0rj3ff

h4x0rj3ff

Chemist
tink about it. if metro started offering contracts who would do it? i would... by the end of the year they should have the spectrum that verizon uses and then they just need to work on the coverage. maybe offer 1year contracts instead of the traditional 2year that everyone else has. i mean still maintain the prepayed aspect they started as but a subsidized s3 on metros unlimited everything plan sounds good to me! maybe start offering better phones like the nexus and the note2.... just one persons opinion.
 
It's a hit and miss thing. On one side, better devices, more clients, etc.

Really, it would depend on their post-paid prices, I feel. Think about it. If say you have a Verizon phone, pretend you pay 90 a month. Metro can give you the same plan with the same phone for 85. But you have much better coverage with big red. What would you do?

Its all about prices I suppose. I can't speak about their service, as I am not a subscriber to them.
 
well ive been with metro for the past 2 years or so and there service reminds me alot like alltel back in the day. i had alltel for about 10 years untill they got bought out by verizon. when we first got alltel i was honestly ashamed to have such a crappy cell company. there service sucked. but they were cheap and they evolved into imo the best cell company (even compared to verizon) in the us. same with metro. when i first got metro there service was crap. now there getting exponentially better. just makes sense that the next step in there evolution is to start offering better devices at a subsidized price.
 
h4x0rj3ff said:
well ive been with metro for the past 2 years or so and there service reminds me alot like alltel back in the day. i had alltel for about 10 years untill they got bought out by verizon. when we first got alltel i was honestly ashamed to have such a crappy cell company. there service sucked. but they were cheap and they evolved into imo the best cell company (even compared to verizon) in the us. same with metro. when i first got metro there service was crap. now there getting exponentially better. just makes sense that the next step in there evolution is to start offering better devices at a subsidized price.
Click to expand...

Valid points, there. If they offer both options, I can see.it being good. As long as their prepaid doesn't jump to Verizon prepaid costs ;) Currently, I'm on virgin mobile. I'm always looking for better/cheaper, though.
 
That's not necessary, however, since they have T-Mobile as well now...
Contracts will stem from the T-Mobile side of the company, while metroPCS will remain off-contract.
That's from internal documents at T-metroPCS headquarters.
 
i understand that but my mother and father in law have tmoble and tmobile sux big time. i hope that metro just swallows tmoble whole like at&t did with Cingular...
 
As a non-contract user who purchased their phone outright, I would be ok with it only as long as I don't have to start subsidizing people who want a $500 phone (via a higher rate). The WHOLE BEAUTY of MetroPCS is that you don't pay for a phone forever. If you run a spreadsheet, you will see that when you pay higher service rates (and low cost or zero cost for the phone), that after about one-two years, if you stick with the same plan, you pay much, much, much, MUCH more than if you buy your phone outright and pay a low a monthly service fee.
 
h4x0rj3ff said:
i understand that but my mother and father in law have tmoble and tmobile sux big time. i hope that metro just swallows tmoble whole like at&t did with Cingular...
Click to expand...

Well after a couple years the metropcs side will be the majority owner of the new company
 
Metro being a contract carrier defeats the whole point of having it. I think they'd loose just about everyone that's with them.
 
Walk me through this again please. How contracts are going to give us better spectrum? There is a reason why Metro is buying T-mobile. It's much better investment. They get Towers and all the clients. Instead of putting thousands more towers around US they are getting already set up company. T-mobile is not a bad carrier. It's all depends on the location.
 
Only thing is -prices would probably go up.

Isn't Metro PCS and their no contract no added taxes or fees policy

one of the reasons other companies/carriers have been forced to come up with similar Plans or at least keep their prices lower?

It's surprising what people are paying- Metro helps drive prices down IMO.

You will have prepaid OR Contract Options with T Mobile PCS post Merger

anyway.....
 
i was contemplating making a thread about this a while back.

it would only work if we got the same prices we get with our prepaid.

otherwise no go.
 
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but it is going to have to be a heckuva a contract to get me back on track.

The only reason you want a contract is so you don't have to pay $500 up front. Probably one of the most inaccurate words in the cell phone biz is subsidize. The truth is the carriers do not subisidize your phone. Instead they make you a loan and then wrap the payments plus interest up into service payments. Why do you think they run a credit check for a service they can shut off if you don't pay? Why do they charge huge termination fees if you try to get out of the contract early. In the end you pay much more for the phone than if you bought it outright.

Honestly it is much better to just swallow the upfront payment. Not only is it cheaper in the long run but easier on the cash flow month to month since you don't have as much money tied up in your phone bill.

Although it is probably to much to hope for but I hope when the merger is through that T-mobile drops thier contract business.
 
fdbryant3 said:
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but it is going to have to be a heckuva a contract to get me back on track.

The only reason you want a contract is so you don't have to pay $500 up front. Probably one of the most inaccurate words in the cell phone biz is subsidize. The truth is the carriers do not subisidize your phone. Instead they make you a loan and then wrap the payments plus interest up into service payments. Why do you think they run a credit check for a service they can shut off if you don't pay? Why do they charge huge termination fees if you try to get out of the contract early. In the end you pay much more for the phone than if you bought it outright.

Honestly it is much better to just swallow the upfront payment. Not only is it cheaper in the long run but easier on the cash flow month to month since you don't have as much money tied up in your phone bill.

Although it is probably to much to hope for but I hope when the merger is through that T-mobile drops thier contract business.
Click to expand...

so you're saying a two year contract at $55 a month no limit all is impossible?
 
I believe -unlimited everything- would have been a preferable choice over -no limit all-. If that's what you were talking about W.
 
yes,

i dont like using the term "unlimited" because its also one of the most inaccurate words used in the cell phone biz.
 
with my calculation (remember i said i wouldnt pay more than 20 MORE dollars than i am paying now):

60 unlimited x 12 months + 499 = 1219 off contract
80 unlimited x 12 months + 199 = 1159 on contract

yet my numbers are a little different these are only my views on what should happen
 
actually everyone has 1 year contracts but dont advertise them. i just reread your post and you were referring to current plans by everyone else. i was referring to a nonexisting plan that metro should adopt if they were to adopt a contract.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom