T-Mobile Backs Off Price Hike They Pretended Wasn’t A Price Hike
from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept
Earlier this month we noted how everything critics of the T-Mobile and Sprint merger predicted has come true, whether it’s 10,000 employees who have lost their jobs, the steady implementation of fees and price hikes, a lower overall quality product, or the company’s boring new branding.
Those inevitable outcomes recently culminated in a new suite of price hikes the company pretended weren’t actually price hikes. In short, the company declared it would be automatically “upgrading” many of its users to more expensive tiers, violating its pre-Sprint merger promise not to raise rates.
Initially, T-Mobile denied this was a price hike (it was a price hike). Then the company tried to claim it wasn’t impacting many customers (it impacted a lot of customers). Now the company appears to have backed off the decision after getting significant backlash, but not after first blaming leakers, the press, and a supposed “lack of context.” From the company’s recent conference call:
“Now I don’t know that we still have to do that test cell because, to your point, we did get plenty of feedback thanks to the erroneous context of the leak. And I think we’ve learned that particular test cell isn’t something that our customers are going to love.”
This is precisely the kind of weasel-esque corporate speak that former, pre-merger T-Mobile CEO John Legere would have relentlessly made fun of. But now that there’s overall less serious competition in the U.S. wireless market, that kind of disruptive behavior is simply no longer necessary.
Based on comments by T-Mobile President of Marketing Mike Katz, the company didn’t honestly learn all that much and plans similar “tests” in the future:
“I would expect to see more of those kinds of tests from us because it’s been a consistent practice throughout the entire Un-carrier journey so that we get it right for the experience for our customers.”
In short they’re still trying to pretend a price hike was somehow innovative.
This is precisely why meaningful regulatory review of competition-eroding mergers matter (the Trump FCC didn’t even bother reading details about the plan’s impact before approving it). Once such deals are done, the griping of the press and public generally isn’t enough to counter the reduced competition, or the relentless need of publicly traded companies to exploit it in order to please Wall Street longer term.
Filed Under: antitrust reform, broadband, competition, fcc, high speed internet, mergers, wireless
Companies: t-mobile
Comments on “T-Mobile Backs Off Price Hike They Pretended Wasn’t A Price Hike”
Thank you, Erroneous Monk, for your inaccurate and uneven-handed press coverage.
“I would expect to see more of those kinds of tests from us because it’s been a consistent practice throughout the entire Un-carrier journey so that we get it right for the experience for our customers.”
Translation: We got caught this time and the blowback was big enough we had to back off, but we will absolutely try similar stunts to jack up the price our customers are paying without them realizing it in the future.
Old plans
I’ve been with T-Mobile since they were voice stream. I called in when people on tiktok were freaking out. I definitely have an old plan, but the rep I spoke to said I wasn’t affected as it was primarily affecting people on the old 2g/3g plans.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Cope about inflation
Last time you posted this drivel, i discovered that the price hike was less than inflation, and so they unreasonably backed off of a price hike, because of the allegation it had to do with market concentration.
What do you think is going to happen when the covid money printer turned on?
Re:
What does the relationship of a charge to inflation have to do with whether the provider is lying about it being an increase? Why is it acceptable that a “COVID money printer” exists?
Presumably this is why there’s an argument there about hidden charges being too complicated to explain to regulators (but not too complicated to bill). Some people love to be screwed…
Reality world
Tim again.
Like others said, this article (and tech articles in general) are way off the point of what was suggested.
First everyone was flat out wrong about the plans being targeted. These were plans dating to 3G and earlier eras.
Second, “price hike” is a flat out headline grabbing lie. The 300m 100mb plan, the oldest still supported, was/is 39.47 per month. Per line. The lowest current new plan is 34.85 per line. That’s the plan the migration would move to. Oh, and they went from downloading one bella and whistles web page per month to over 50 GB of data at full speed.
Third there was no pending surprise. The migration notice was sent out to customers., or being sent out. A friend’s mum uses her cell only for the qr code for her doctor, service wise. Making less than 10 calls a month and rarely using data service. She got a notice of the pending change. Her bill would have gone down.
As I’ve said many times, my T-Mobile account predates the US buyout. I’ve been. Nothing but happy with them for over 25 years. They have the highest communication quality ratings for. Reason.
Yes they backed off of the plan change. Or, more accurately, are migrating customers plans to the new ones at the same price rather than the discounted price. 1/100 will save money with the change. But anyone with more than a basic limited call plan is loosing all. All because psychotic self righteous tech progressives decided to claim monopoly bad see told you.
Re:
Who’s Tim? This article is by Karl.
This is flat out false. The plan I am on was targeted, and it’s not a 2G/3G era plan. We got our plan, which came with a promise that it could last forever, about six or seven years ago.
False. For me, it was going to be a significant price hike. I currently pay $50/line/month, and they were shifting me to a $75/month plan. We have two lines on our plan, so it was going to jack up the price from $100/month to $150/month. That’s a 50% price hike.
The language of the announcement was designed to suggest you had no choice. It was only later in the fine print they told you you could opt out.
So, no, you’re wrong.
Re: Re:
My bad, I’m used to Tim bashing companies.
Your, honestly, the first person I’ve seen directly say that. Most people I know stayed the same rate. My move lowered the cost. Granted i was on the highest plan they (don’t) offer. But we also have more lines than most families do.
But it was stated. Customer’s should read their contract notices. There was no surprise here.
I’m not the first, nor only, one pointing out the vast majority of people complaining are actually on very old plans.
My account dates to Western VSW. For a car phone. That old plan was almost $80 a month. Service costs are far from matching inflation.
I won’t deny there may be some fluke offerings that get cut, as you say your plan was targeted. But the comparison lists when the plans were first rolled out months ago show no cost change for all the common plans.