From the release:
Free Line: Qual’g credit req’d. Customers cancelling a line after 1/1/17 not eligible. May take up to 2 bill cycles. 1/acct; must keep existing lines. Taxes/fees may be applied to pre- bill credit price on some legacy plans.
1. Qual'g credit req'd. Nice way to hide that one T-Mobile. So qualifying credit required - so is someone with less-than-stellar credit not able to get a free line?
2. Customers cancelling a line after 1/1/17 not eligible. In other words, if you already have all the lines you need, don't think you can just cancel one and then get it back for free. And if you cancel any line, you are no longer eligible to get a free line and will lose any "free" line you currently have.
3. May take up to 2 bill cycles. Why? Do humans have to process the bill credit? (yeah, right)
4. 1/acct;... So whether you currently have 2 lines or 8 lines, you can still only get 1 for free. Whoopie! (not)
6. Taxes/fees may be applied to pre- bill credit price on some legacy plans. Ah, so you'll still pay taxes on that line unless, presumably, you're on an "All-In" plan.
So basically, nobody currently on T-Mobile benefits from this except for those who may already be looking at adding a line to their account. And for those that do take advantage of this, you are then stuck with every line you have if you want to keep getting that credit.
This feature is obviously disabled by default, but users can enable it really easily if they want.
Until it's not. It's only a matter of time before Microsoft sets this by default to try and force users to buy apps from the Windows store.
It alleges the family was sold a counterfeit product from China instead of a brand with a Samsung lithium ion battery they believed they were buying from Amazon.
The smoldering remains of their million-dollar home seem to indicate otherwise...
...about the only thing I actually miss from Uverse is AXS and the Velocity channel. I can live without them so far...
Actually, I think PS Vue has Velocity. I watched a recording of Monday's Fast 'n Loud episode last night and was asked if I wanted to watch it on Discovery or Velocity. I haven't checked their channel line-up lately, but I figure it has to have it if it's mentioning it.
Depending on who your carrier is, it makes more sense to upgrade every year than not. For example, if you are on an existing Verizon Share Everything plan, having a phone on a payment plan knocks $25 off the $40 per month line charge, and after half of the phone is paid off - in 1 year - you can trade it in and upgrade with no money out of pocket or just sell the phone outright and pay off the current payment plan then finance a new one (I actually turned a $200 profit doing this last September). As long as you don't buy the phone with the largest storage option, you can finance a phone for less than $25 per month and actually end up paying less than if you paid off the phone in 2 years or bought it outright.
Another added benefit is that your phone is always under warranty. iPhones are only warranted for 1 year by Apple. If you upgrade every year, you never have a phone out of warranty.
In this case, the suckers are the ones who buy their phones or pay them off and don't upgrade. You think you'll be saving yourself the monthly payment, but it comes back when the monthly returns to $40.
Maybe it's time for you to stop using Facebook altogether.
Suggesting the OP should leave Facebook is called avoiding the problem, not providing a solution. It's pragmatic, for sure, in much the same way that avoiding a bully may help you avoid beatdowns, but it does nothing to address the underlying issues he was speaking towards.
Your continued use of the site IS their explicit permission that they can serve you their content
A) No, it is not. Explicit permission would require an explicit action, such as clicking a button to say you agree to their terms (and even that may not be sufficient). Moreover, as anyone who has ever accidentally visited Facebook without signing up for an account can tell you, Facebook is more than happy to shove ads down your throat without you ever having agreed to their terms of service, either explicitly or implicitly.
B) Just because someone serves you something, it doesn't mean you're required to accept it. Facebook is doing the Internet equivalent of a restaurant chef coming into the dining area in an attempt to force-feed customers burnt hunks of food that the customers had cut off. Facebook can try all they want, but we can, and are, rightly offended that they would try to do so.
Besides which, even if visiting a site constituted granting them explicit permission to serve me up anything they wanted, that still wouldn't mean that they could actually serve up anything they wanted. I was one of the first 50,000 users on Facebook, but I left it back in 2009 because of their already-evident cavalier attitude with regards to my privacy (e.g. on multiple occasions, making things public that I had explicitly marked as private). Shortly after my departure, Facebook had to pay US regulators millions of dollars in fines and was forced to retain a compliance auditor for a decade or two as a direct result of the issues I left over. Turns out that even though I and millions of others had explicitly agreed to their terms of service, it didn't mean that their abusive behavior was legal or permitted.
All of which is to say, just as many of us would stop going to restaurants if chefs behaved like I described above, many of us have stopped going to Facebook for the same or similar reasons. But taking your advice and leaving the site hasn't done anything to fix the underlying problems. The bully is still a bully and their behavior is still reprehensible. Why people continue to tolerate Facebook is beyond me.
Leaving was the best solution I ever implemented. I haven't had to "fix" privacy settings for the better part of a decade now.
Also there needs to be a distinction between Comcast's residential cable network (Xfinity), and the rest of Comcast, these divisions and groups are are run by different people, with different expectations and goals. Just because you had a bad experience with Xfinity doesnt mean the rest of Comcast is rotten.
No there doesn't. All Comcast divisions pull the same bullshit and are out to screw you just like every other Comcast division. All of Comcast is rotten to the core.
It's not possible to be increasingly useless. They could be increasingly less useful, but useless already means that they are no longer useful in any way.
Unfortunately for us readers, they became useless years ago.
With WiFi usage, I can't possible see anyone using 24 GB of data... That's a shit load of data.
24GB makes no sense for 1 or 2 lines but does for families sharing the data plan. I've been grandfathered into a 30GB plan for $120/mo for a few years now (Verizon keeps trying to trick me into switching... ain't happening) that is shared by 8 phones, a tablet, and a wifi hotspot, and it's often that we approach the limit - every few months we go over and eat the $15-per-extra-GB fee (fuck you very much Verizon).
You will have many recoverable tape errors.