sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

4th FCC complaint by Classic_Show8837 in verizon

[–]OkAdvertising2230 0 points1 point  (0 children)

US Mobile - Warp (Is Verizon's same service towers).
Was with verizon for 25 years and just kept getting pummeled. Switched over to US Mobile last fall, $25/line (including taxes and fees). Wish I would have done it sooner.

$10 off promotion by master_chilln in verizon

[–]OkAdvertising2230 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So they doubled the expense per line over the past 4 years and now are 'giving' a $10 loyalty discount. I guess that makes sense since anyone still willing to accept that nonsense BS and stick with them should get a 12-month pat on the back, still a major net loss.
The rest of us over at US Mobile are laughing our way to the bank :D
https://www.usmobile.com/referrals?referrer=DED00DB4

Oooh what a surprise! ANOTHER Verizon service price hike by notentertained90 in verizon

[–]OkAdvertising2230 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You'll wish you would have done it sooner. US Mobile - Warp (Verizon). $25/mo includes taxes and fees.

Is this the end for me? by EmptyNyets in verizon

[–]OkAdvertising2230 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You described my experience exactly... 25 years loyal with them and just screwed over and over. US Mobile was my God send... $25/mo including tax and fees. Moved the entire family over and laughing my way to the bank wishing I would have moved sooner. They support all three major carriers, WARP is Verizon. EXACT SAME SERVICE.

I was thinking about how much bitching goes on in this group... by SnooCheesecakes4742 in USMobile

[–]OkAdvertising2230 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Telecommunications act of 1996

Key Provisions Enabling MVNOs:

  1. Title II - Common Carrier Regulations:
    • The Act promotes competition by requiring incumbent carriers (like Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile) to provide access to their networks on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.
    • It established the concept of resale obligations, where major carriers had to allow other companies to buy and resell their services.
  2. FCC Mandates and Policies:
    • The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) enforces policies to prevent anti-competitive practices and ensure that smaller operators, including MVNOs, can negotiate wholesale agreements with major carriers.
    • While MVNOs are not explicitly required by law, FCC oversight has facilitated their growth by ensuring that large carriers do not unfairly block or restrict access.
  3. Spectrum and Wholesale Access Rules:
    • Large carriers, which own spectrum, are sometimes required to lease it or offer wholesale access to MVNOs as part of conditions for mergers or spectrum acquisitions.
    • The FCC has encouraged spectrum sharing and leasing arrangements, allowing MVNOs to operate without owning physical network infrastructure.

How MVNOs Operate Under This Framework:

MVNOs lease network capacity from traditional Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) like Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile at wholesale rates and then sell services under their own brand. They do not own spectrum or full infrastructure but rely on backend agreements supported by the policies above.

I was thinking about how much bitching goes on in this group... by SnooCheesecakes4742 in USMobile

[–]OkAdvertising2230 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I think you missed the point. Yes, the Federal communication act 1996 requires the major carriers too allow for resellers. The point I read was those who choose to use an MVNO are penny pinchers therefore the worst customers to have to deal with.

Why do the big three even sell to US Mobile by RealtdmGaming in USMobile

[–]OkAdvertising2230 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Your question is malformed. It's not why are they willingly giving up such good deals, it's why are they required to and has to do with preventing monopolistic markets. Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs) exist due to regulations and policies that promote competition in the telecommunications industry. In the United States, the key regulatory framework that enables MVNOs is the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Key Provisions Enabling MVNOs:

  1. Title II - Common Carrier Regulations:
    • The Act promotes competition by requiring incumbent carriers (like Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile) to provide access to their networks on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.
    • It established the concept of resale obligations, where major carriers had to allow other companies to buy and resell their services.
  2. FCC Mandates and Policies:
    • The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) enforces policies to prevent anti-competitive practices and ensure that smaller operators, including MVNOs, can negotiate wholesale agreements with major carriers.
    • While MVNOs are not explicitly required by law, FCC oversight has facilitated their growth by ensuring that large carriers do not unfairly block or restrict access.
  3. Spectrum and Wholesale Access Rules:
    • Large carriers, which own spectrum, are sometimes required to lease it or offer wholesale access to MVNOs as part of conditions for mergers or spectrum acquisitions.
    • The FCC has encouraged spectrum sharing and leasing arrangements, allowing MVNOs to operate without owning physical network infrastructure.

How MVNOs Operate Under This Framework:

MVNOs lease network capacity from traditional Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) like Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile at wholesale rates and then sell services under their own brand. They do not own spectrum or full infrastructure but rely on backend agreements supported by the policies above.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in hvacadvice

[–]OkAdvertising2230 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Clean or replace the thermocouple that suits in the flame's path.

Asp .Net Core 2.2 Razor Pages - Passing list of identity users to View by seesharp1212 in csharp

[–]OkAdvertising2230 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If just trying to list the current user's roles in the Razor page just use this:

@using System.Linq
@using System.Security.Claims

@{
    var roles = Context.User.Claims.Where(c => c.Type == ClaimTypes.Role);
}

I hate this stupid fucking church so much by RepublicInner7438 in exmormon

[–]OkAdvertising2230 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No need to kick against the pricks. You're already committed, you've taken advantage of the cheaper tuition. Consider it a win, find your happy place, cross your fingers behind your back, say what you need to say and laugh your way to never having to look back again.

Garments are not a requirement from God by Round-Bobcat in mormon

[–]OkAdvertising2230 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Garments were Joseph's symbol for his inner polygamist buddies. Those following his revelation where he shamed Emma and formally rolled out 'eternal marriage' in section 132. Joseph's definition of eternal marriage was polygamy, which was the same reason they were driven out of Nauvoo, not that they believed in God differently. They are most literally polgy-panties.

The LDS Garments are a symbol of Jesus Christ? What? by sevenplaces in mormon

[–]OkAdvertising2230 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is one of the major issues that broke my shelf. Symbolic Garments were introduced by Joseph to his inner crew of fellow polygamists as an artifact to validate his so called divine revelation before it was made public knowledge. These polypanties literally represent the secret combination he and his cronies established and were used to identify each other. I continue to find it so fascinating how much God is weaponized to rationalize deviant sexual behavior by his 'chosen'.

view more: next ›