Price Lock

No.  Iv’e never had any bill to pay off. It was offered when I moved to Prescott. It was a promotion given during Covid. 

If you get one of those JD Power & Associates surveys this year, be sure to fill it out and accurately describe your customer service experience.
 

There are some of us who had the deal before the language about just paying off your last month was part of the deal. There was language in the T&C’s specifically prohibiting them from raising the price or even ***unilaterally changing the terms*** , but they seem to just want everyone to forget that. 
 

Best thing to do is take them to arbitration over it and make them explain it. And of course file complaints with FTC, FCC, BBB and local PUC. 
 

It’s such a blatant disregard for the plain language that I wonder if a judge (or small claims courts) would consider the contract breached and throw out the arbitration clause also.

This is going to be a lengthy post, but I think it is important to read for anyone who has done, or is considering an FCC complaint. In short, I am providing the response T-Mobile has given to me in its entirety as well as voicing my own complaints about how the company is handling the response with this post. 

I have just gotten my response to the FCC complaint on 6/11/24. This is by far the worst response I have ever gotten in comparison to other companies I have filed a complaint against through the FCC:

• This is the first FCC complaint that doesn’t address me by name. Normally I get contacted from someone higher up with a 1-on-1 conversation. At&t for example, I get a representative from the Office of the President along with a name to contact from there if I have related issues. In the response I got from T-Mobile, there is no person, phone number, etc. to contact and it was signed off as “T-MOBILE USA, INC.”
• There seems to be no PII in the letter. I was not referred to by name in the response to my complaint nor was my address on the letter. My address and name was in form of a sticker on the envelope containing the response, usually I would see an account number or similar in a response like this as well, however there seems to be nothing like that. I was referred to as “To Whom It May Concern” in the letter. The response I got was a sounds like a generic copy and paste letter, leading me to believe that those filing the FCC complaint have received a similar response. 
• It looks like T-Mobile are dead set on doing whatever they can in order to keep the changes, they have offered the solution of paying the final bill if I decide to leave the company. I am at a disadvantage here since I am paying off a device in form of bill credits for a device I got from T-Mobile as a replacement for a family member’s device under a deal, I would be forfeiting the credit if I leave the company, which makes me responsible to pay for the remainder of the device. I also pay for 2 different accounts since my first account is greater than 8 lines.
• The letter also provides the implication that affected customers are replaceable and T-Mobile would rather gaslight, lose long-term customers and even pay them a month just to get those affected customers to leave.
• T-Mobile claims that they have “began offering” Price Lock on April 28, 2022. This is false, and the links found in this thread prove it, and doing a google search for and setting the filter for results published before that date also proves it. Whoever sent this response did not read my complaint since I have mentioned that the agreement for the time I took my plan was archived through a website archival service, archive.org . Thankfully, that website exists, making it useful for situations like this.
• Based on the conclusion of the letter, it looks like they are requesting for the complaint to be closed, but the letter is so generic, it is unclear if they are asking me to request to close it, or to the FCC. In either case, I will am going to wait on what happens from here.

Here is the content of the letter, there may be some typos since this is an image-to-text scan:

To Whom It May Concern:

T-Mobile USA, Inc. ("T-Mobile") is in receipt of your correspondence regarding T-Mobile's recent rate plan monthly recurring charge update As costs and inflation continue to rise, for the first time in nearly a decade, T-Mobile has made some small adjustments to the pricing of some of our older rate plans. On May 22, 2024, T- Mobile began notifying customers enrolled in older rate plans that their plan's monthly recurring cost will increase as of their June or July 2024 billing statement.

T-Mobile notified all impacted customers, by way of text message and email, of how the change specifically impacts their account, including how much their current rate plan will increase, when to expect the increase, and where they can find more information. The price increase ranges between $2.00 to 5.00 per line. All plan types, benefits, and due dates will remain the same. If any customer is interested in shopping for a new rate plan or would like to review our current rate plan offerings, we encourage them to contact Customer Care or visit T- Mobile.com/cell-phone-plans.

Regarding these changes, we are aware some customers have inquired about T-Mobile's Un contract and Price Lock. With Un-contract, T-Mobile committed to its customers that if we were to increase prices and customers chose to leave as a result, T-Mobile would pay the customers' final month's recurring service charge, as long as we are notified within 60 days. Consistent with that commitment, customers who activated on an eligible rate plan between January 5, 2017 and April 27, 2022, can request to have their final month's qualifying service charge reimbursed if their rate plan price increases and they choose to cancel service. Customers simply need to request reimbursement within 60 days of the price increase.

As for customers with concerns about T-Mobile's Price Lock guarantee, it is important to note that customers with Price Lock are not impacted by the change. On April 28, 2022. T-Mobile began offering Price Lock on new account activations on qualifying rate plans. For customers who activated on a qualifying plan between April 28, 2022 and January 17, 2024, Price Lock guarantees that accounts activated with a qualifying rate plan, within the enrollment period, would not be subject to a price increase, so long as the account remained in good standing and the customer remained on the qualifying rate plan. If a customer migrates to a new plan not covered by Price Lock, the Price Lock guarantee will fall off the account given the customer is no longer on a qualifying rate plan. Lines covered by the April 28, 2022 to January 17, 2024 Price Lock guarantee are exempt from the monthly recurring rate plan changes. Based upon the foregoing, we respectfully request that this complaint against T-Mobile be closed.

Very truly yours,
T-MOBILE USA, INC.

🙄 John Legere set all this in motion... why people act like he is any different is hilarious 😂... he played on words, setup the foundation for T-Mobile to do this present day. JL is no better than any previous or current bd CEO, they NEVER cared about the customer, external or internal, it was all a plot!!! And people are being naïve to think otherwise 

I'm surprised I havent read from the comments how funny it is:

Of course I know it wasn't a true restriction, after all its a man made program; **however**, isn't it convenient for years T-Mobile told customers those plans had restrictions, line caps that could not be changed, saying they couldn't make changes to the plan and you would have to switch plans to add more lines.....

Yet, they are able to raise price as it fits them... Comical and pathetic.

Self imposed limitations....

@ManOfIntegrity & all

Has anyone received any positive feedback from any of the organizations where complaints have been filed? 

Positive feedback? Ha! Not likely, unless there’s some internal action that takes place within the next ~ 30 days T-Mobile is unlikely to rollback this poor decision. Currently the only hope we have is someone kicking off arbitration, turning to small claims, to class action subsequently being made whole at a later date.  

My next bill, in about one month, will be for the increased amount.  I don’t want to imply that this increase is ok with me.

Review your bill, in short, this is no different than a financial institution where you have up to 60 days to notify them of any billing disputes in writing! Note, if you raise issue with this increase and accept an account credit this negates any cause(your rights) for arbitration or more as them crediting your account “resolves the issue”. The issue with that is this matter is not a limited issue, one time grievance. This is a potential permanent change which technically means that after you’ve done the dispute letter, they have time to respond (is it 60 days, I forgot) then if you are not satisfied with their resolution then you proceed further with arbitration etcetera –

If your goal is to at some point receive financial compensation (in arbitration/class action/small claims) then you should make a formal dispute in writing and specify you don’t want a one-time bill credit, but rather for them to adjust your rate and honor the terms of the initial agreement. They will likely say nothing is wrong with the bill and the amount is correct, and as a one-time courtesy they may (or may not) credit the difference. At that point you accept it and move on or continue with the escalation process for arbitration/small claims/class action.

 In order to keep service, I’ll have to pay the bill.  The only other option would be to change service providers. 

Yes, you should(must) keep your account in good standing while an active customer, especially if you are pursuing a legal claim or want to port out(albeit I think I read they can’t legally keep your numbers due to non-payment as long as service is active or something like that). As far as changing service providers, I have seen one too many posts about switching to an MVNO, specifically to a T-Mobile MVNO – this is extreme cognitive dissonance and contradictory:

1. If an MVNO is available to you (T-Mobile or Other), prior to this price increase notification – WHY wouldn’t you already switch and save your money!? Why did it take T-Mobile (Postpaid) to increase your bill for you to go to an MVNO(most of you switched to a T-Mobile one LOL) that has BEEN available to you prior to…
2. If I take issue with T-Mobile dishonoring the terms of my agreement with them (principal), then why the heck would I give them or ANY of their affiliates my business?! The primary catalyst for my disdain is the principle of their actions, not so much the denomination. Therefore, if I do switch providers, it will NOT be to a T-Mobile affiliate (MVNO’s) – that is less than smart. I want NOTHING to do with them if it gets to that, so yes, despite T-Mobiles costs likely being lesser even with the increase & in lieu of their GREED, I will even consider paying MORE to a competitor! So unfortunately, the MVNO’s that use T-Mobile are catching a few strays but oh well. “I switched to Google Fi, F T-Mobile” “I switched to MetroPCS, F T-Mobile”  - you can’t make this up – people are clearly being emotional  and not logical.

However, if we can prevail with the complaints and somehow force T-Mobile to honor their commitment to us, I’d rather stay put.  Just don’t want the fact that I pay my bills to give them the wrong signal.

Well, it doesn’t seem like the abiding parties who received our complaints have said or done anything publicly. I did receive e-mail communication from the FCC and it stated they would contact me once they received a response from T-Mobile, then T-Mobile sent a letter that everyone has now seen; this letter did not follow previous FCC complaints(addressing me) and they typically make contact by phone or email to resolve, then present this back to the FCC – as of yet I have not heard from the FCC so my guess is they sent the default letter to us and has not officially responded to the specific complaint(s).

Comments?

My disgust with this decision by T-Mobile is disheartening. The business relationship is forever changed. The issue for me and one I will argue in front of a judge is simple: the original contractual agreement of never changing my rate plan directly influenced my decisions over the years to include but not limited to:

A)Switching carriers(example: we declined X deal despite being on our price locked plan because of the long-term effects; T-Mobile has misrepresented their position and disallowed me to make informed decisions. If my bill was unstable or going to change anyways, I could have taken advantage of other options.

B)Device upgrades/EIP/Promotions – if my reoccurring charges are set, then this impacts my decision to do business with T-Mobile from a device financing perspective.

C)If I participate in a promotion that indicates I must retain service for X amount of time to receive my promotion in full, then increasing my rate plan after the fact is in direct contrast with this decision.

If my rate plan was not set, then I would not feel comfortable deepening my relationship with the T-Mobile since I may need to switch at a moment’s notice due to volatile nature of our business relationship. My rate plan costs directly influenced multiple decisions over the years. This is what we want to be made whole from. I made buying decisions based on my rate plan.

It is unjust to keep my devices locked to your network, bill me for a remaining EIP balance for a device that was supposed to be free.

Note: if you are on a regular EIP and just paying off a device, then that remaining balance is due regardless of your rate plan amount; however, T-Mobile should allow you to move that EIP to the account level and allow you to continue paying off the device without a large lump sum bill  in the event you leave since they raised your rate plan.

IF your EIP is on a promotion that would be directly (negatively) impacted by the discontinuation of service, then T-Mobile should forgive the remaining balance on those EIPs since you had no intention of leaving the company for the duration of time (fulfilling the promotion requirements) and since T-Mobile decided to raise your bill (something that was not supposed to happen) you switched providers. T-Mobile should pay off the remaining EIP balance for those circumstances.

If my rate plan was able to increase at a moment’s notice, MOST people would decline those EIPs, and device promotions and T-Mobile knows this. Sure, some of us buy unlocked devices which often doesn’t always have the same carrier-locked device benefits (example – my unlocked Samsung does not do RCS messaging in Samsung Messenger, yet my “carrier locked/firmware” does allow RCS in the Samsung App for BOTH PTN’s dual SIM – Google Messages does NOT offer DUAL SIM RCS and Google Messages is the only way to get RCS messaging on the unlocked device; yes, you can load carrier firmware on the unlocked model, but not everyone is comfortable doing this)

Ideally, I’d love for T-Mobile to make this right. I have a nasty taste in my mouth after all of this. I have several EIP’s open for “free” devices, and this is not right because I wouldn’t be cancelling services based on my own decision to forfeit my remaining credits, but rather T-Mobile raised my bill when our agreement said this would not change, so I participated in the promotion because I had no intention of leaving T-Mobile, especially during the promotional period. I would only pay off EIP’s that I would have had to pay off anyways, any balances left on what would have been a promotion aka free/discounted – T-Mobile can get bent.

I just received a response from the FCC! It requires a response back, within 30 days or it will be closed. T-Mobile sent the same letter to me (listed above) and it doesn’t even mention anything about the 55+ plan that I signed up for. Just a reminder to respond to the FCC within that 30 days for them to look into it further. If anyone hears anything else, keep us updated please!

I updated my FCC complaint today, pointing out that T-Mobile is telling the FCC one thing (Price Lock customers WON’T be impacted), while telling its customers the exact opposite (Price Lock customers WILL be impacted).

I ask that you keep my complaint open, for the reason explained below.

On/about June 11, 2024, I received from T-Mobile a hardcopy of an electronic filing that T-Mobile sent to the FCC on June 4, 2024.  That filing advised the FCC that T-Mobile has made adjustments to the pricing of some older rate plans (“the change”). 

In paragraph 5 of that filing, T-Mobile gave the FCC the following assurance:  “. . . customers with Price Lock are not impacted by the change”.

I called T-Mobile Customer Service yesterday, June 19, 2024, hoping to find out that T-Mobile’s assurance to the FCC is true.  I spoke with “Courtney”.  She confirmed that I am a Price Lock customer, but then told me that my monthly charge will go up anyway, despite T-Mobile's assurance to the FCC that customers with Price Lock will not be impacted by the change.

I think the FCC needs to ask T-Mobile why it told the FCC one thing (Price Lock customers WON’T be impacted), but is telling customers exactly the opposite (Price Lock customers WILL be impacted).

If the FCC does not have regulatory authority to ensure that a cellular provider complies with a guarantee to its customers, which Federal agency does have such authority?

Please keep my complaint open until T-Mobile agrees to honor its guarantee to its Price Lock customers.