Unlimited Canada and U.S.-Wide talk plans that don't even include unlimited calling to all places in the continental U.S.?

@Val_T Is there (or will there be) a post or FAQ on the site that collects all of the information from these announcements?

Not seeing this as the biggest deal, lets face it, Iowa and South Dakota?  Maybe if it was New York or something, but i can deal without all the corn from Iowa.

PE-CF®594 from BD Biosciences has an excitation peak at 496 nm and an emission peak at 612 nm. It is an alternative to PE-Dazzle 594, PE-Alexa 610, PE-eFluor™ 610 and PE-CF®594.

That's interesting that you get LTE in Canada on your T-Mobile plan.  The last time I'd seen any discussion of it, LTE data was not included when roaming.  So that's definitely a plus.  It's still technically limited since you're not supposed to use it more than 50% of the time outside of the US, but still interesting.

Out of curiousity, how exactly do you get "better phone signal [and] data...than [you] can get with any Canadian carrier" when you are using Canadian carrier infrastructure? I can understand that you might find a plan that offers you more, but the network technology is going to be the same given that T-Mobile does not have a network in Canada.

As of December 8th, 2016, calls made to the following six digit combinations will no longer be supported on any Talk plans and add-ons that include U.S. calling to:

That Reedley exchange looks to be commonly used for those free conference call services as well.  A quick googling around shows other people being unable to call 559-726 numbers on their Google voice, etc.  More traffic pumping.  Capitalism at its finest!

It looks like Telus has done this for Telus customers as well (excluded these areas from US calling plans).  See this article: http://www.iphoneincanada.ca/carriers/telus/telus-80-canada-usa-plan-bc/

I did some research on this, apparently some of these area codes are significantly more expensive to terminate calls in than the norm for North America. No surprise, it is a revenue-generating idea for those areas. The rural exchanges in some US states such as South Dakota and Iowa are permitted to charge significantly higher termination fees, ostensibly to cover costs on lower-volume exchanges. However, they solicit high-volume services such as teleconferencing and sex chat lines in order to drive more calls through these expensive connections.

@CaNuCk07 I think you were joking around (hehe), but on the off chance you weren't, this would be a big deal for anyone with friends or family in Iowa and South Dakota that used to be able to call them freely....

Correct - calls made to these US phone numbers will not be supported. Meaning Canada & US Talk that is included in the base plan (if chosen) and the long distance add-ons that include US calls will not include calls to these phone numbers.

It's really important that we offer our products and services to our customers at fair rates. Unfortunately, our agreement with our partners in the U.S. makes it extremely expensive to support calls made to these regions. In order to keep our Talk prices as they are, we had to make a difficult decision to exclude these numbers from our Talk packages.

Want to join an existing group? Please ask a member of the group to invite you! Request an Invite

Despite having a possible 9999 "bad" numbers, according to the FCC there are fewer than 100 actually being restricted. 100 for the entire country, not just 1 exchange.

Military

It also is counter intuitive because they would REALLY need to make it up on volume, the fees actually DECREASE every minute used so driving in extra volume is kind of pointless no?

And no, I'm not really THAT concerned that our plans are more expensive than in the US - that 10x the population difference, and a smaller area to cover network-wise, makes a significant difference.  We're still getting screwed here in general (evidenced by the fact that the Big 3 can offer way cheaper plans in provinces where there's a viable 4th carrier, like MTS in Manitoba, Sasktel in Saskatchewan and Videotron in Quebec), but I don't really expect Canadian national carriers to really be able to provide the same level of service for the same price that American providers can, simply due to economies of scale.

Public's also going to have to change the way that they advertise the U.S. talk plans and add-ons.  Even then, who's going to subcribe to them now, if Public is going to start excluding certain cities and area codes?  I can't recall any phone company company in Canada that just charges different rates for places inside the continental U.S., or any that exclude certain places.  I believe Public should just charge what they need to charge and not overcomplicate things, which I see this as.

Making matters worse, customers won't be able to call those numbers even if they are willing to pay extra, because as we know, Public doesn't do pay-per-use.

It's really important that we offer our products and services to our customers at fair rates. Unfortunately, our agreement with our partners in the U.S. makes it extremely expensive to support calls made to these regions. In order to keep our Talk prices as they are, we had to make a difficult decision to exclude these numbers from our Talk packages.

Yup, AT&T/Cingular has blocked these types of things since 2007. Wind too (with mention of Mobilicity), since at least 2011.

Must say this, alternative if PPL must dial these area codes, Purchase a Calling card, that is Only Viable option until PM conjures an alternative to the situation

Totally what happened.  I would assume most "unlimited" plans probably block these exchanges because it would cost way to much to support.

Notice: By Clicking Create Group you agree to the Terms and Conditionsand Privacy Policy on FluoroFinder.com

AFRICOM

2 - Some amount of it is about bargaining power - US carriers have 10x the number of subscribers that Canadian carriers do (on average, based on population), and so they can negotiate much better roaming rates.  For specific numbers - T-Mobile USA has nearly 70 million subscribers, and they're only the *third largest* carrier in the US.  Telus has 8.5 million wireless subscribers.  You don't think T-Mobile has more power to negotiate better rates vs Telus?  If those regions are standing firm and drawing a line at 10 or 15 cents a minute (or more) to connect to their networks, should Telus be required to suck it up and take a loss on that?

Hail to the MAN! It's terrible how the BIG companies exist to exploit! *shaking head* Don't know if this is the situation in Reedley, but it for sure is in Iowa and South Dakota.

As of December 8th, 2016, calls made to the following six digit combinations will no longer be supported on any Talk plans and add-ons that include U.S. calling to:

"As of December 8th, 2016, calls made to the following six digit combinations will no longer be supported on any Talk plans and add-ons that include U.S. calling..."

@kav2001c I wondered as well why a place like Reedley, California would be excluded, because as @Jsauter posted, it's one exchange of 9999 numbers max. I went to the wiki page about Traffic Pumping (again that Jsauter posted), and was astounded by this...

US area code

@srlawren I wonder if anybody actually has any real numbers in those exchanges, that aren't for-profit services?  The phone companies seem to be working with the teleconferencing/long distance services that operate in these exchanges in order to make all kinds of money.  I'd be surprised if they're giving any numbers to actual residential customers in those exchanges.

While this doesn't really impact me at all because I hardly make phone calls anymore in general and I have no friends or family in those exchanges, I hope this is not a slippery slope where more and more places get removed from US calling.  I suspect this will be a one off scenario.

Rural carriers can receive millions of dollars of fees [ for pumping calls through their area code exchanges ], which they then share with the ostensibly "local" service providers [ the big phone companies ], who are responsible for vastly increasing call volume above typical rural usage.

@daredogg I am unsure if I sympathize with AT&T / Google etc. The term Traffic Pumping is a term fabricated by long distance carriers to paint rural areas negatively because they have higher fees.