On 2023-11-28 22:58, Your Name wrote:
> On 2023-11-28 19:49:58 +0000, Carlos E. R. said:
>> On 2023-11-28 18:05, sms wrote:
>>> On 11/27/2023 7:46 PM, david wrote:
>>>> Using <news:uk3j7k$gfb$1@dont-email.me>, sms wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, Verizon will not activate service on one of the
>>>>> Android tablets that does have built-in LTE capability and that
>>>>> supports phone calls. I have one such tablet (Hyundai).
>>>>
>>>> She already has a SIM card on an iPhone 14 activated by Verizon.
>>>> If I get her a "phone" tablet, can the SIM work without re-activation?
>>>
>>> It is not guaranteed. While it would likely work initially, when
>>> Verizon eventually sees that their SIM card is active on a device
>>> with an IMEI that is not on their approved list, they would stop
>>> service. They do check this because they don't want customers putting
>>> a SIM card into a hotspot and using unlimited data on the hotspot.
>>> Some hotspot users will change the IMEI of their hotspot to that of a
>>> "donor phone" to get around this but I doubt that this is possible to
>>> do on a tablet.
>>
>> Gosh.
>>
>> Some providers here even sell themselves routers with SIMs, on
>> batteries, intended for going on vacation. I have one such SIM, I pay
>> 9€ a month (and not all months). And the router I bought separately,
>> from a computer seller, because I did not consider the ISP router good
>> enough. Pity it is 4G only.
>>
>> They don't care at all. I think the SIM has now 50 gigs/month.
>>
>> Funny info: that router even does SMS. I did not have to use a phone
>> for activation, ever.
>
> Here in New Zealand, the internet providers that have a 4G / 5G home
> plans send SMS messages to their modems for things like acknowledgement
> of the monthly invoice being paid ... but the stupid thing is that you
> have to log in to the modem and go to the modem's SMS page to read them,
> there's no notification that an SMS has arrived (neither on the devices
> nor a light on the modem), and so almost nobody even knows the SMS
> function is even there. It is limited though to only receiveing SMS from
> the provider. It usually can't be used to send messages nor receive
> messages from other senders.

Well, yes, I have to login on the router to see the messages. I don't
remember if there is a LED or not.

I can receive SMS from anyone, even spam. And send them. That is, I
could send them till someone realized I was not paying for sending SMS
(the SIM contract is data only) and now I can not send them :-D

>
> I've never tried putting the modem's SIM into a phone, but, although it
> of course has it's own phone number, it is almost certainly a data only
> SIM.

That's only an administrative distinction, the limitations are in the
contract. The SIM themselves are identical, AFAIK.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

In comp.mobile.android, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 17:09:33 +0100, Jörg Lorenz
<hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:

>Am 27.11.23 um 12:38 schrieb Theo:
>> While that is true, it's not quite the same as having regular phone service
>> - eg can't make emergency calls, might not work so well in areas of low
>> signal, the app needs to be always connected to receive calls. Also, such
>> apps may not handle SMS and MMS.
>>
>> Going for a tablet with regular LTE/5G voice is a much simpler prospect,
>> IMO.
>
>Good arguments. Depends on priority and readiness to spend money. A new
>tablet and a regular service cost every month. If this person with a
>reduced vision remains basically at home and has a reasonable wireless
>network the solution can be much simpler. Nevertheless I would not
>recommend Skype as sole connection to the world for a handicapped person.

I use Skype on a laptop when I travel. Haven't used it much lately but
4 or 5 years ago I did, and for a little extra money you could get your
own phone number, and there were a variety of answering maching
programs. I'm sure by now one of them works well. calls to other
skype number (as if that will happen) are free;, and others were iirc
2.3c a minute.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 11/28/2023 7:47 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > You mean I can use my TV provider for my current Philips TV, but can't
> > buy/use a new Samsung because my TV provider 'doesn't support that
> > device'?
>
> This is a flawed analogy. As most analogies are.

It isn't 'flawed'. See below.

> The carriers in the U.S. care very much about which devices are active
> on their networks.
>
> They especially don't want users putting their phone SIM cards into
> hotspots and then using their unlimited data plan to replace broadband
> internet. In areas where they have deployed 5G mmWave they are happy to
> sell you "wireless broadband" service because they have the capacity for
> that kind of usage. Some hotspot users bypass these restrictions by
> changing the IMEI of their hotspot to the IMEI of a "donor phone."

That's a *somewhat* valid reason, but also an example of "unlimited"
not being unlimited. Here (NL) we mostly use fair-use policies or
throttling to prevent 'abuse' of "unlimited" plans.

> They also don't want devices on their network that don't support a
> sufficient number of the LTE bands that they use. This is both for
> capacity reasons and because subscribers would complain about data
> speeds if the device only supported legacy LTE bands.

Then *warn* the user, but don't deny any and all service.

> They probably wouldn't care about someone using a tablet as a phone, but
> there aren't enough such customers, or such tablets, that they would
> bother to add them to their whitelist.

They shouldn't use whitelists, they should use blacklists, if any.

Look, over the years, I've used many (10-20) SIMs from many providers
(10 or so?) from different countries in many devices (15 or so?) -
phones and modems - of several (5 or so) brands and I have *never* had
any of this nonsense.

Carlos (Spain) also seems to indicate that he doesn't have such
problems and we've yet to hear from non-USAsians who do have such
problems.

So this seems to be very much a US-specific problem, which wouldn't be
accepted in Europe, nor probably in the rest of the 'western' world.

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote

> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/28/2023 7:47 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> You mean I can use my TV provider for my current Philips TV, but can't
>>> buy/use a new Samsung because my TV provider 'doesn't support that
>>> device'?
>>
>> This is a flawed analogy. As most analogies are.
>
> It isn't 'flawed'. See below.
>
>> The carriers in the U.S. care very much about which devices are active
>> on their networks.
>>
>> They especially don't want users putting their phone SIM cards into
>> hotspots and then using their unlimited data plan to replace broadband
>> internet. In areas where they have deployed 5G mmWave they are happy to
>> sell you "wireless broadband" service because they have the capacity for
>> that kind of usage. Some hotspot users bypass these restrictions by
>> changing the IMEI of their hotspot to the IMEI of a "donor phone."
>
> That's a *somewhat* valid reason, but also an example of "unlimited"
> not being unlimited. Here (NL) we mostly use fair-use policies or
> throttling to prevent 'abuse' of "unlimited" plans.
>
>> They also don't want devices on their network that don't support a
>> sufficient number of the LTE bands that they use. This is both for
>> capacity reasons and because subscribers would complain about data
>> speeds if the device only supported legacy LTE bands.
>
> Then *warn* the user, but don't deny any and all service.
>
>> They probably wouldn't care about someone using a tablet as a phone, but
>> there aren't enough such customers, or such tablets, that they would
>> bother to add them to their whitelist.
>
> They shouldn't use whitelists, they should use blacklists, if any.
>
> Look, over the years, I've used many (10-20) SIMs from many providers
> (10 or so?) from different countries in many devices (15 or so?) -
> phones and modems - of several (5 or so) brands and I have *never* had
> any of this nonsense.
>
> Carlos (Spain) also seems to indicate that he doesn't have such
> problems and we've yet to hear from non-USAsians who do have such
> problems.
>
> So this seems to be very much a US-specific problem, which wouldn't be
> accepted in Europe, nor probably in the rest of the 'western' world.

I don't think this is an American thing so much as perhaps a "Verizon-only
thing"... if what Steve is saying about Verizon is true (or, since Steve
patronizes MVNO's, it could also be only a Verizon-MVNO thing perhaps).

While I've had all three major carriers over time (where their service is
about the same in the areas Steve claims is not), I readily admit I don't
have recent Verizon or AT&T experience.

But I have over a decade of T-Mobile post-paid service, where my experience
has been you can put their SIM card into just about anything and it will
work as T-Mobile doesn't seem to care what you put it in (as far as I can
tell, as I've done it many times on many phones - but not on tablets yet).

Interestingly, when I call T-Mobile up for support, they ask which phone
and then they "think" that phone is an old phone - which must be in their
records - so not only do they not seem to care, but they don't update their
databases based on what phone you're actually using (it seems to me).

And, like Frank said, the carrier gives you fair warning when you're close
to any limits. For example, the 5GB of "high speed hotspot" warning comes
at 4GB (I know this because I have kids who burn up data like it's paper).

I'm sure there is a warning if you get close to your unlimited data limit
(which is actually potentially limited to 50GB per month per tower if that
tower is deemed to be congested by T-Mobile).