$15 unlimited Stateside International Talk and Text feature launching on Feb. 23rd

stateside feature

A few days ago we heard from a source that T-Mobile was about to launch a new plan to allow customers from the U.S. the ability to call friends or family in Mexico as part of their Simple Choice plans. It turns out, that information was only true in part. Another of our sources got in touch with a few pieces of information and company communications that bring the bigger picture in to play. Or, make it much clearer at least.

According to the leaked information we’ve received, Tmo is set to revamp its current International Talk & Text options. Not only is the name changing to “Stateside International Talk & Text”, to help distinguish between that and international roaming, but the company’s also introducing a new $15 plan.

For $15, users will get unlimited calling and texts. Unlike the $10 and $7 plans, the $15 plan includes calling to mobile numbers in 32 countries as well as landlines in over 70 countries. As well as that, you’ll get 1,000 minutes to use calling mobile numbers in Mexico. (See where the Mexico thing comes in now?)

For $15, customers will get:

  • Unlimited texting to over 200 countries
  • Unlimited calling to landlines in over 70 countries
  • Unlimited calling to mobiles in 32 countries
  • 1,000 minutes calling to mobiles in Mexico

Unlike the $7 and $10 offerings, the $15 Stateside International Talk and Text plan will be available to all Simple Choice plan subscribers, including No Credit Check customers. All three plans will be available to prepaid users, providing they’re on a plan of $50 or more. I must re-iterate, to make this 100% clear: This is not international roaming. It is calls from the U.S. to international landline and mobile numbers.

Screen Shot 2014-02-11 at 20.54.08

As well as this new plan, Simple Global Wi-Fi calling rates are being changed to a flat-rate of $0.20 per minute, with no toll charges. As for when these new plans/offerings are going to be available. The internal leak we got hold of suggests that systems will be updated to start offering it on February 23rd, which matches up nicely with the information we got previously.

Currently, we don’t know which 32 countries are going to be included, but as soon as we hear specifics on that the post will be updated. It certainly sounds like an interesting offer for those with friends or family abroad. Racking up huge bills by calling abroad can be scary. Of course, Skype/FaceTime and other video calling services are available, but they always require a solid data connection on both sides of the call. And that’s something you can never guarantee.

ii_14422b065453ecd1-image

What do you guys make of these changes? Are they welcome? Apart from the fact that you can now pay $15 per month and ring me as often as you like, will you see any benefits? (That last one was a joke. I think.)

Tags: , , , , ,

  • peharri

    Sounds very good indeed. I’m almost sorry most of my family that I call frequently has moved to the US ;-)

  • Shuang Li

    It totally depends on what are those 32 countries. Like China, Singapore, and Hon kong, the other carriers never differentiate the landline and mobile numbers. Only t-mobile still charge extra for calling mobile numbers of those countries with the $10 international calling plan. Even Metro-PCS( T-mobile’s own subsidiary) doesn’t charges extra for these countries.
    If the plan includes France , Germany or Japan then i would say it’s a good deal.

    • archerian

      In some of these countries, it is actually cheaper to call mobile phones rather than landlines. $15 per line is rather steep, especially when it is applied to family lines..

      • fentonr

        I don’t think most people apply a feature like this to multiple lines.

      • Cam Bunton

        If it was me, I’d stick it on one line only and make sure that whenever anyone in my family needed to call abroad, that they used that line. May not be practical in every single case, but it sure beats adding a $15 add-on to every line.

    • Cam Bunton

      I’m still waiting to hear back on those. But I can’t imagine the 32 countries will be obscure ones. I’d expect the major EU countries like UK, Germany, France, Spain as well as Canada, Australia etc. All speculation, for now, but we’ll find out soon.

  • taron19119

    Nice

  • archerian

    For users on limited minutes plans, will this use their Whenever minutes?

    • Cam Bunton

      As far as I can see, this is Simple Choice and Prepaid only. But, also, if your prepaid plan has limited minutes, then I can’t imagine it would use those. This is unlimited calls internationally, on top of whatever you already have. If that makes sense?

      • Jax

        So if u have simple choice $50 u will be charge additional $15 if u want this

    • Stefan Naumowicz

      The add on is only for 50+ simple choice and prepaid rate plans, which all have unlimited minutes anyway

  • alex

    $15 per line is way to expensive! $5 for 1000 mins would be better !!!

    • Cam Bunton

      So, you’d like a single $5 add-on of 1000 mins for Mexico mobiles only?

      • techymexican

        that would work for many actually or just add the 1,000 minutes to the current people that are paying $10.

  • AJ

    It depends on the countries of course as to who will take advantage of this. Not having to deal with phone cards or some other service and being able to call direct will be huge for some folks. I am still waiting to see what countries are included in the 32 before I make a decision. Sorry Cam, not sure you will be getting a whole lot of extra calls with this deal. :-)

  • Paul

    Pretty cool, but why is Mexico limited? Are they not cool enough to be apart of the 32 mobiles in other countries we can all??

    This will appeal to those that have families in other countries, or if they have family that is visiting another country-a quick skype message for mom and dad to call the kiddo who’s in Germany will help reduce charges on the mobile bill. I think this is a great idea and could really bridge a gap in the mobile arena.

    • xmiro

      I’d guess because of Mexican telecoms costs

    • Jon

      The answer is simple because Carlos Slim is in love with $$$$$

  • S. Ali

    I can’t say this is worth the cost considering most people who would use this are already on Skype, buy prepaid calling cards, or use mobile apps (iMessage, Line, What’s App, Google Hangouts, Kik). The apps are free person to person. Why pay $15, $10, or $7 vs. FREE?

    • KingCobra

      Quite a few people already pay the extra $10 for the international plan they have now. Nothing beats the convenience of just picking up your phone to make a call without having to worry about 3rd party workarounds.

      • AK

        If you are primarily calling the same international numbers, LocalPhone is a great 3rd party option. Once you set it up, you have a unique US number that is linked to an international number. So you basically call that US number and it connects to the international number. You can setup as many numbers as you need. This is significantly cheaper than the T-Mobile add-ons as well as Vonage. They also have an app that you can use for texting.

  • Willie D

    Same plan on MetroPCS is only $10 rather than $15

  • maximus1901

    Q4 results get released Feb 25.
    If TMO ONLY talks about expanding LTE to 225mil – they’ve already stated 225mil – then Sprint merger is near.

    • xmiro

      How do you figure that?

      • maximus1901

        If TMO doesn’t announce further lte expansion, what are the most plausible reasons?
        1) it doesn’t have enough money in which case it will go bankrupt and be bought by Sprint
        2) it has already decided to be bought by sprint AND decided on a price so any further investments are, from DT’s perspective, equivalent to flushing money down the toilet.

        • hanfeedback

          On of the least thought out posts ever. For starters, TM has spent years lingering on 4G rollouts before the Sprint merger was even a twinkle in their eye. Also, They just this last month announced the 700A purchase, so how does all that go with your theory?

        • maximus1901

          CEOs plan for ALL eventualities and TMO needed to upgrade to lte no matter what. If TMO was planning for a merger all along, they needed to have leverage over sprint in the form of customer additions. the 700mhz purchase was another shot across the bow stating “we want a high price or we’re gonna have as much low ban spectrum as you b**ch”
          LEVERAGE
          Or, if DT figures they can make this work after all, then the new LTE network and 700a are necessary to survive.
          I strictly addressed their coverage goals, or lack hereof, to be indicators of their will to compete.

        • hanfeedback

          So by that theory your first post makes no sense then. If they plan for all scenarios why not keep spending money after things like the ATT or any potential Sprint merger was announced based on the possibility that it might not go through. According to you they wouldn’t do that.

        • UMA_Fan

          They just spend $4 billion they didn’t have to buying spectrum from Verizon. I think you’re freaking out.

        • maximus1901

          My point is they should announce more than 225 mil coverage goal SOMETIME. NO?

        • maximus1901

          Ping. See my comment about sprint 250mil on pcs lte about. If sprint can do it, so can TMO. Sorint’s prives are not THAT much higher than TMO’s.

        • xmiro

          that as always they’re focusing on metro areas?

          T-mobile voice service runs on 1900Mhz they would need double the towers, at minimum, to cover the same area that an 800Mhz license would.

          The 700Mhz is now getting deployed but it would be months before it shows up and even then you need a phone that supports the frequency

          It’s a matter of economics. Tmo network boss Neville Ray said at the CES 2014 conference it’s not economical to cover sparsely populated areas with 1900mhz

        • philyew

          I doubt they’ve actually started deploying 700MHz, since I don’t think the deal is approved by the FCC yet. Other than that, I agree with you.

        • maximus1901

          In their transcript, Sprint repeatedly stating they’re covering 250mil with PCS LTE by mid year; they’ll only cover 150mil with 800lte end of 2014. So TMO should at least cover 250mil with 1700/2100 if sprint can use 1900. Cause we all know how incompetent sprint is right? ;)

        • maximus1901

          Lte on pcs reaches even less than w-CDMA aka tmo voice on pcs. Sorry but if sprint can do 250mil pcs lte it, then tmo should also do 250mil lte aws

        • xmiro

          Because Sprint owns 18x18Mhz of near nationwide 800Mhz spectrum it’s using for LTE and T-Mobile does not

        • besweeet

          Well, LTE popped in a few new places in Kansas over the past few days and in other places, so they’re definitely expanding their LTE footprint.

        • maximus1901

          Did those areas already have hspa+ previously?
          Can you give the zip code or city/town?

        • besweeet

          I don’t know the exact areas, as it was what I read recently on HowardForums.

        • philyew

          Excellent example of making 2 + 2 = 5.

        • maximus1901

          I’d love to hear YOUR explanation if TMO only announces 225 mil LTE. Hmmm?

        • philyew

          You have defined an expectation which has no real basis. Why, simply because they are announcing their Q4 results, do they have to announce a new plan for network modernization? They haven’t completed the previous program yet and always indicated that it would take until into 2014 to complete.

          We know they raised $3.8 billion at the end of last year for capex, and the Verizon deal hasn’t used all of it up, but there are different ways it can be spent. Maybe they are waiting to see if there are other parcels of 700MHz A block they can pick up.

          I have argued repeatedly that their strategy is to concentrate on building the best possible network in those areas where they already have a 4G footprint, because it makes the most financial sense. There are over 180 million people in those areas who are potential customers, compared with less than 90 million in the areas that you are so eager for them to extend into.

          The potential return on every dollar spent in those larger metros is considerably more than any spent in their 2G-only areas, and until that changes, I don’t expect to see a substantial program to extend beyond routine replacement of superannuated equipment, deployment of 700MHz as and when FCC approval allows, and some highway fill-ins as allowed by the availability of fiber in the area.

          I have to take my hat off to Verizon whose LTE coverage campaign has a lot of people, it seems, measuring network effectiveness by the extent that coverage exists in areas they will never visit in their lifetime.

          If TM’s 4G coverage stops at your city limit, and that’s a problem for you, take advantage of the aggressive market conditions that TM have created, and move to a carrier which can address your needs.

          Right now, TM are replacing every customer who feels that way (and acts on the feeling) with one or more coming the other way. Until that stops, I won’t take the absence of an extended 4G program as anything other than a continuing focus on optimizing revenue from the larger metro areas.

        • maximus1901

          My expectation came from the fact that
          a) tmo has 209mil lte and 229mil hspa+ so they’re almost done upgrading the easy sites.
          B) AT&T VZW sprint announced their pops target 2-3 years before they reached it.
          Tmo can’t announce where they’re gonna be in 9 months?
          Gimme a break. If they “don’t know” then they’re sitting tight waiting for the sprint merger to resolve itself.

          Fuuuuuurthermore, have you SEEN the ch 51 exclusion zone map?

        • philyew

          You’re talking like they haven’t got any plan beyond the original network modernization program.

          In fact, they have a multi-billion dollar plan to continue optimizing performance in the largest markets. They already spent billions acquiring the spectrum and have announced they will begin the roll-out in 2014.

          Just because it isn’t the program the YOU want them to prioritize, doesn’t mean that they don’t know where they will be in 9 months or more, and it certainly doesn’t mean that the only alternative is that they are sitting tight waiting for the Softbank takeover to be resolved.

          How stupid do you think they are? They proceeded with the A bock spectrum acquisition AFTER the talks between Softbank and DT began. Exchanging cash and spectrum worth $3.4 billion is hardly “sitting tight”.

          Yes, I have seen the map published by AT&T two years ago. I have it bookmarked. There are issues for some key markets, but not for the majority of POPs covered by the licenses. TM will be able to start their roll out of 700MHz in 2014.

        • maximus1901

          I want my pcs/aws phone to work when I got outside the city limitsa and when traveling between Metro areas with lte. That’s not what most people want?
          You mentioned that tmo has 180mil potential customers and they should focus on those and not the other rural ones.

          Ummm. Haven’t try been doing tha for the last couple years? How has that worked out. And why hasn’t that worked out? City limits coverage. And don’t go bringing up “they don’t have any low band” because a) their fault they didn’t even try bidding in 2008 and b) sprint will cover 250mil with 1900MHz LTE. Why can’t tmo do the same?
          And then cover the rest of its 280mil with 700a?
          What’s tmo’s marketing gonna say?
          “Coverage outside the city limits ….if you get a new phone”?
          If people are gonna be forced to get a new phone, why shouldn’t they just go to Sprint framily?
          $25 1 GB assuming 7 people for the service.

        • philyew

          Sure, quite a lot of people with TM service want better service in the cities and outside, but most people with service from other carriers don’t sign up because they believe TM’s service where they work and live isn’t as good as the service they have from their current provider.

          Since vastly more people live and work in the cities and their suburbs, it makes sense to spend precious investments in those areas dealing with the immediate issue of making TM’s network perform comparably with their competition.

          Think about the alternative. TM choose instead to spend their funds upgrading their 2G-only footprint. When that is done, they go to the vast majority of the population with service from other providers and say, “Hey, our service in the country is now as good as it is in the cities and suburbs.” What’s the likely response? “Your service in the cities and suburbs still sucks in comparison with what I get now from Verizon etc, so why should I change?”

          It’s a simple equation when you have limited funds: you go after the majority of your potential customer base, with measures that promise the most immediate positive impact on their potential user experience to make it as good as, if not better than, their current situation.

          There isn’t an easy win for TM, but I’m convinced that this is the right way to proceed.

        • maximus1901

          But what if they can’t get 700 MHz everywhere? Besides Verizon, there’s US Cell, C-Spire, Cavalier who have 700a. Us Cell is actually USING its 700a block and C-Spire has shown it doesn’t wanna sell.
          And in Chicago – third largest market – Leap and soon ATT will own that 700a license. Though Chicago is completely covered in ch51, ATT still has no incentive to sell its chief competitor that block, especially since under the 700mhz interoperability FCC order, ATT has to transition to having ALL Band 12 devices over the next 2-3 years meaning its phones will be be 100% compatible with TMO’s network.
          In those areas, is TMO gonna do anything about densifying its aws/pcs towers to address in-building/rural coverage?
          Or is it gonna wait until 600MHz is deployed circa late 2016 at which point people with Band 12 devices will be told “you know how we told you that buying a Band 12 device will fix all your in-building coverage/rural issues . . . .yeah . . .. you’re gonna have to buy another phone with 600 MHz support”

        • maximus1901

          I agree that TMO’s service also sucks in the suburbs and city: as I walked into a haircut place in a strip mall, my iphone 4S dropped from “4G” to “EDGE”.
          Whenever I get to this one point on a freeway, my 4S drops from 4G to EDGE then a few seconds later 4G.
          But those spots don’t have to be addressed with macro cell sites but with small cells/DAS. ATT is deploying 40k small cells so why can’t TMO consider them?
          If TMO were to
          1) upgrade entire 280mil footprint with AWS LTE, PCS HSPA
          2) place small cells in suburbs, city where one loses lte, hspa

          THEN, as an ATT customer comes off their contract, they’d be insane to NOT consider TMO given their AWS LTE, PCS HSPA phone is now 100% compatible with 280mil of coverage.

          How does this reason alone not justify the above two points of investment?

          This wouldn’t replace the strategy of obtaining low-band MHz because VoLTE still requires a robust signal to operate seamlessly so TMO should still pursue 700a no matter what.
          Plus, as part of the FCC order on lower 700 MHz interopability, all of ATT’s phones HAVE to eventually support B12 (within 2-3 years).

        • philyew

          Money.

          You’re looking for them to invest in sub-1GHz spectrum AND a program for deploying 3G/HSPA+/LTE service throughout their 2G-only footprint using PCS/AWS AND another program filling in urban coverage using small cell/DAS…all at the same time. Where’s the money coming from?

          They have about $1.4 billion cash left from last years initiatives to raise capital to cover these expenditures. From that must come the cost of further modifying modernized cell sites to handle 700MHz A block. They are also looking to acquire other 700MHz licenses.

          It cost them $3.4 billion in cash and equivalent spectrum to get 12MHz from Verizon covering about half the population, which probably equates to about 20% of the nation’s physical land mass. It’s going to cost at least as much again to acquire 700MHz or 600MHz licenses to make a significant impression elsewhere.

          All I’ve said is that, despite what can be done technically, there is a limited amount of funds available to engage in these programs and they must be scheduled to yield the optimum financial benefit, which is sequentially, rather than in parallel, because of this constraint.

          As a result, it’s possible that developments with their access to sub-1 GHz spectrum will obviate the need to consider network modernization using PCS/AWS in many rural areas.

        • maximus1901

          If you agree that my two investment prongs would bring in millions of AT&T customers exiting contracts then it doesn’t matter that all that money would have to be borrowed because the payback would be huge.

        • philyew

          I get your idea, and I would be happy to see it work, but I don’t think that the pace at which the rural build out could be completed would have a sufficiently compelling story for current AT&T customers to join TM and make up for their shortfall in funds for capital expenditure.

          It’s one thing to build up subscriptions in 250+ markets where there are over 200 million POPs residing, since each one of them has a direct appeal to a substantial number of potential new customers, and they had a pot of money upfront to cover the investment. It’s quite another to build out the remaining 450-500 markets spread out across an area four times larger with next to no directly supporting revenue.

          It took them a year to reach 250+ markets in areas that were geographically tight and accessible. All the time that they are building out the rural areas, they would be taking on many fewer new customers directly in those areas because of the lower population density, and would only sporadically appeal to people who live in the urban areas because the correlation between residence and transitory presence is much more random.

          I’ve already suggested that build-out along the main highways makes sense, but where else do you choose to prioritize the modernization so that it appeals to the millions of urban AT&T refugees in a short enough period of time and the increasing revenue can be self-supporting of the expenditure?

          The company is already close to being over-leveraged with its debt ratio around 80%, if suggested debt levels are to be believed. It’s very questionable how well they would do raising new funding without first showing some real momentum on their current initiatives.

          Looking at all these parts, and the elements I’ve discussed before, I just don’t think there is a realistic financial basis for launching simultaneous activity on urban sub-1GHz and rural LTE deployment.

        • maximus1901

          1) sounds like you’re making a pretty good case for the Sprint merger ;)
          2) that’s what I like about a scrapper: they’ll do whatever it takes to survive.

        • philyew

          Strange as it may seem, there are a lot of people who don’t buy the idea that their carrier needs to have coverage where they are not. I have a simple view that, if you really can’t live with TM’s coverage, you need to get service from someone who makes you happy. I’m not a TM fanboy, and don’t really care if people exercise their choice to leave in line with TM’s stated philosophy. As they say, you live by the sword and die by the sword. I just think that I understand what drives their current approach.

          As for the Sprint deal, I’m sure that if the only objective was to have three carriers with full nationwide LTE coverage at any price, the takeover would be a good idea. However, I’d rather have a few more years of TM helping to re-shape the mobile market and make a better environment for the consumer in the long run, even if it means waiting for better rural coverage.

          You enjoy whatever service you decide to go with.

        • maximus1901

          Stupid disqus squelches urls but google “AT&T no MHz left behind”
          They have the ch 51 exclusion zone map.

          If I understood you correctly, tmo plans on ONLY expanding lte beyond initial 225mil with 700a?
          But it won’t be able to use 700a inside those red circles till ch 51 is moved which won’t happen till late 2016 because 600 spectrum auction won’t happen till mid 2015.
          I totally agree that the roi on using aws for coverage is horrible but they won’t be I the position

        • maximus1901

          To worry about that. They’ll have to keep on heaving in money to SURVIVE.
          Even sprint has 5×5 800 MHz lte everywhere except 60 miles within border and 3×3 in southernlinc areas. If tmo does at least match sprints 250mil pcs lte with 250mil aws lte, it’s tmo will get slowly stripped.

        • philyew

          I already have the AT&T article bookmarked and referenced it before writing here. There is no reason to doubt TM’s statements that they have access to begin developing 700MHz LTE service for more than half the POPs covered by the licenses, once the transfer of ownership receives federal approval.

          In terms of hard numbers, that means they can start rolling out the service to upwards of 75 million POPs. That’s plenty to be getting on with in 2014.

          I’m not saying that TM will only use 700MHz beyond the initial coverage areas. I’m saying that I expect 700 A block to be the main priority for their roll out in the latter part of 2014.

          Additionally, however, they will be using the NSN and Ericsson equipment to upgrade any towers where hardware needs to be replaced (many existing cell sites are equipped with such old equipment that no one is capable of supporting them any more.) Where that happens, and they have adequate PCS/AWS licenses, with the ability to deliver commensurate backhaul, you can expect 3G/HSPA+/LTE service to be deployed as well. It just won’t be part of a structured program in the same way as has happened thusfar.

          It’s possible that they will also start to run a smaller program to fill in along major highways outside the 700MHz A block areas, but I wouldn’t imagine that would be significantly large enough to warrant a headline announcement.

          I’m not sure where you get your certainty that it will take over a year from the 600MHz auction for DTV broadcasters to complete their migration from channel 51 to their replacement channel. Can you explain why you think it will take so long?

        • maximus1901

          1) tmo has enough licenses everywhere they currently have a gsm footprint for aws lte and aws hspa simultaneously; AJ explained that so let’s not pretend that tmo’s spectrum stops at the city limits
          2) I don’t have any article or technical background in TV station broadcasting; I’m just repeating what was said at s4gru.
          I’m not sure if the repacking will require tv stations to buy new equipment again or if tier new equipment – after the transition to dtv – is configurable.
          Regardless, with just my simple engineering background I can safely guess that even retuning would take 6 months and that’s IF the tv stations don’t drag their feet. And if I were them I would.

        • philyew

          I have no idea why you are even making comment (1). I’m not saying they can’t extend beyond the city limits because of lack of PCS/AWS spectrum. I’m saying that even with that spectrum they have to re-provision the spectrum for each cell site, install the NSN or Ericsson equipment, as well as upgrade the backhaul in order to deliver 3G or better service anywhere there is currently only 2G.

          In addition, extending into rural areas using PCS/AWS requires that the investment and work is carried out on far more cell sites than would be the case using 700MHz because of range issues. In other words, if there is an opportunity to upgrade using 700MHz at some time in the future, they will probably pass over doing it using PCS/AWS first.

  • besweeet

    What happens on the receiving end? Will the people you’re calling get charged by their own provider?

    • randomnerd_number38

      The same thing that always happens when you call that person. Do they get charged when you call them right now? This change only affects your bill, not theirs. If they don’t know, have them ask their provider.

    • josephsinger

      It depends but most countries outside of North America have calling party pays meaning that they do not pay anything for incoming calls unless they are roaming in another country.

  • Irfan

    vonage added Pakistan last year to unlimited calling and sold more then one million routers , i already took off my landline after 4 years use of t mobile service and I don’t need it ..thats gonna be super duper if they add Pakistan in its list which has no hope ..

  • Irfan

    oh ok …mean this only adds 32 mobile countries in 70 land lines countries list so no new country in ita calling list….not a big change ..

  • todd

    This would save us a fortune. Ok so I get u dont know what the 32 countries are but if u were to guess when do u think they might list the countries. Thing is if the country I need is listed I will sign up in a heartbeat. If not this I might as well Stay On the 10 Dollar plan.

  • steveb944

    Seems pretty good, hope the country I need will be included.

    From the post it seems Mexico is limited to 1000 minutes mobile, while the other 32 are unlimited mobile.

  • Tmouser

    When they changed the international plan 2 months back, calls to Canada changed from land-line only to now include cell phones. By the looks of this “upgrade” it will now cost new people $5.00 more. Hopefully they don’t change everyones plans that are on the old setup.

  • http://twitter.com/ZamoraO OZ

    Would that be $15 per line, in a family plan?

    • wrush

      Hi All,
      anybody can answer the above question. If I have $80 family plan and take $15 add on service can both line can share this talktime.

  • Melissa Cardenas

    I will have to do that when i go back to the US next week, so far tmobiles mexico roaming is working fine roams on movistar in GDL, Michoacan is Telcel. Data is kinda slow but usable for fb,email going on tmonews haha on movistar ,when i was in Telcel in michoacan had no data was only able to call local numbers n call back to the Us n txt but had no data even phone displayed 3G i guess tmobile has no data roaming agreement with TELCEL?

    • noelsito

      I was only able to get Movistar from TJ all the way to GDL, and I had NO DATA. It sucks because Telcel covers the pueble I visit, but my phone stays with Movistar…

      • Melissa Cardenas

        Sucks no good i was in michoacan last week in Morelia, Uruapan my phone was on movistar and data worked but slow. When i went to apatzingan and buena vista it automatically switched to TELCEL didnt have to do anything i have an xperia Z. My moms tmobile galaxy s4 same thing switched to telcel automatically.Only that on telcel we had no working data only worked to call n txt also did u made sure u had data roaming on? Im in GDL writting this roaming via movistar. Data roaming on.

        • Jonathan Villicaña

          i was there 3 weeks ago same thing happened in my town in michiocan . i was roaming on movistar but for some unknown reason one day my phone connected to telcel and was able to use their 3G data network howerver a day later data stopped working and i could only make calls and texts so i manually switched back to movistar but either way the edge network in my town was unusable. When i left the US on the 22nd of january i checked tmobiles roaming partners and it was iusacell and movistar during my trip they changed from iusacell to telcel. Wonder whats truly going on ?maybe they haven’t finalized the data agreement. I go once a year i hope they allow data on telcel soon. PS i even payed for the speed increase

        • Melissa Cardenas

          Ohh nice well i do hope they do make an agreement with telcel because its much better than movistar.

  • PiCASSiMO

    Calls and text to Canada should be FREE… just like they are via GOOGLE VOICE.

    • philyew

      Google Voice uses IP telephony to route your call all the way into the destination country, so that when it connects to the local switched telephone network it is recognized as an in-country, rather than an international call.

      TM uses the circuit switched network to route its calls (even wifi calling only travels over the IP network as far as the TM servers before being joined to the circuit switched network to complete the call). Because a call from TM is completed over the conventional switched network, it can be recognized as an international call and subjected to call termination fees.

      If Canada doesn’t levy termination fees on calls from the US then you are right, but if they do, then it is unfortunately appropriate for some charge to be made by TM.

      • PiCASSiMO

        Very good question, which could explain why the calls to Canada have never been free by the carriers.

        • david

          That’s actually incorrect. Right. Ow y mobile offers unlimited calling to Canada under the $15 unlimited talk and text plan, to mobiles and home phones.

    • Jazmin

      canada text and call is included already ( Free Mobile calling to canada and text with International T&T plan

  • jjuan

    why is only 1000 minutes to Mexico? If you do not know, the second richest man in the world lives in Mexico ( He used to be the richest for few years but he lost the spot last year) and he owns Telcel or America Movil, his name is Carlos Slim. So the minute of cellular time is ridiculously expensive, I am sure that he would not want to get into an agreement to offer unlimited calls, he would lose a lot of revenue so that is why they were able to negotiate only 1000 minutes. I already have the $ 10 dollars plan, but when I need to call the mobile phones of my relatives I need to add at least 15 o 20 dollars monthly because the minute to cellular is expensive, so adding the 5 extra dollars to the plan will save me money.
    Unfortunately not everybody there, at least in Mexico, have a data plan with a big enough bucket to allow video calls or the use of other voice app to communicate with them at anytime. For my relatives, friends and siblings that would be very expensive, to add the data plan to their phones if they want to use apps. They use them if they are at their home connected to the WiFi, but the purpose to have a cell phone to have the freedom to go any where any any time,gets defeated If I need to ask them to stay at home because I am going to call. So 5 extra dollars is a wonderful addition to the services offered by T-Mobile.

  • Jax

    so if you are in a $50 plan? it will be $50 + $15 to get this service?

  • Jax

    I hope the Philippines will be one of the countries that we can call unlimited or 1000 min a month…

  • Ricardo A. Espinosa

    Guys anyonr having trouble adding this service

    • Ricardo A. Espinosa

      None of them seem to know what countries are included in the mobile to mobile….

  • bakgwailo

    Has this launched yet? There was no update on the 23rd, and I can’t find a press release…

    • Ricardo A. Espinosa

      yeah go online to the tmobile web page