Home - , , , , - TPO Mobile Adds New International Plan and Increases Kind Plan Monthly Price

TPO Mobile Adds New International Plan and Increases Kind Plan Monthly Price

TPO Mobile (also known as The People's Operator US) earlier announced some new changes to its mobile plans.

$21 Kind Plan

The first announcement TPO Mobile made was that they have increased the price of the Kind Plan from $19 per month to $21 per month. With AutoPay service, a $5 discount is given to the plan, which is available for $16.

Apart from the increase on the Kind Plan, TPO announced that the data on their plans are hard capped. This means that once the monthly data allotment has been used up before the month is over, they will automatically disable data until the next billing cycle starts. 

New $44 International Plan 

There's also a new international plan they have added as part of its prepaid offering. Starting today, you may now opt for their new $44 International Plan, which will include unlimited talk, unlimited text, and 2.5GB of data. There's also unlimited mobile and landline calling to Mexico and Canada available under this plan. When enrolled in AutoPay, the $44 plan is further given a $5 discount for $39.

TPO Mobile has started to offer a $5 and $10 international add-on that users can purchase to allow them to call up to 220 countries until the allocated funds have been consumed. There's also a choice between:
  • $10 Global Goodness Unlimited Plan - includes unlimited mobile to landline calling to Mexico, Canada and over 79 countries and unlimited mobile to mobile calling to over 30 countries
  • $15 Global Extra Goodness Unlimited Plan - includes everything offered by the $10 Global Goodness Unlimited Plan but adds an extra country from these options: 
    • Costa Rica: 250 mobile to mobile minutes
    • Cuba: 15 mobile to mobile or landline minutes
    • Dominican Republic: 200 mobile to mobile minutes
    • Peru: Unlimited mobile to mobile calling 
    • Philippines: 100 mobile to mobile minutes
    • Venezuela: 250 mobile to mobile minutes
With these changes, the new TPO Mobile US plans now offer:

TPO Mobile US Plans:
  • $21 Kind monthly plan - includes 1000 minutes of talk, unlimited text and 500MB of high speed data. $16 with AutoPay.
  • $30 Noble monthly plan - includes unlimited talk and text, 2GB of high speed data. $25 with AutoPay.
  • $40 Caring monthly plan - includes unlimited talk and text, 3GB of high speed data. $35 with AutoPay.
  • $45 Hero monthly plan - includes unlimited talk and text, 5GB of high speed data. $40 with AutoPay.  
  • $65 Gracious monthly plan - includes unlimited talk and text, 7GB of high speed data. $60 with AutoPay. 
The People's Operator US International Plan:
  • $44 Global International Mobile Plan - includes unlimited talk and text, 2.5GB of high speed data and unlimited mobile and landline calling to Mexico and Canada. $39 with AutoPay. 

The People's Operator US Tablet Plan:
  •   $25 Tablet Plan - includes 2GB of data. $20 with AutoPay.

As previously written, TPO is a charity-oriented carrier. When you get a plan under TPO, 10% of your monthly bill goes to a cause you support. At the same time 25% of their corporate profits goes to the TPO Foundation, which will then be distributed to other charities.

TPO's monthly plans don't include taxes and fees so additional charges will still be applied at the end of the monthly cycle. Service under the carrier is available on Sprint's CDMA and T-Mobile's GSM network. BYOD program is supported with an eligible GSM or Sprint device.

Source: TPO


Comment Page :
  1. Raising the price on the kind plan isn't a kindly act. Yes,it's a deal breaker to me.

  2. It was $19 now with auto pay it is $16, so...........?

  3. If they were really concerned about charity, they'd give away free phones with unlimited service.

    But since they're in it for profit, I'll judge them like I would any other MVNO:

    Higher prices, lower data, and an all around bad deal.

    Maybe someday they'll realize how market competition works, but I'll pass until they find their niche.

  4. The greedy whingers are back. The $16 plan is still a bargain. Plus you're helping others. Not that you care though.

  5. Underwhelmed....

  6. Paying $19.32 on the kind plan. No other provider (not sure about sprint) can come close with price and data. Ptel had a 250mb plan for $20 before then went down and that was the best price for data. I am talking about low end users not $/ per GB.

  7. Kind plan needs unlimited minutes. You shouldn't have to pay $9 if you don't need more data.

  8. The whiners don't even bother to think before posting. To get as much as the $16 plan provides via another Tmobile-based carrier they would have to spend at least $29/month.

  9. Apparently many people think they're an expert on how wireless plans should be priced, even though they have no idea what it takes to provide the services and stay in business.
    This guy does, and if you want to learn a thing or two, take a couple of minutes to read this:

    1. Interesting link, I think that he has priced wireless higher than reality and wired lower than reality. In other words, he has discounted too much the lack of competition for wired data.

    2. There are two problems with that article.

      The first is competition blindness, which disregards the wireless industries' ongoing battle for consumer patronage.

      The second is that there's no mention of how Canada (aka Smart America) already held a gun to distributors' heads and demanded a la carte television by the end of the year.

      They're planning to let the fair market chart a course towards innovation with consumers at the helm.

      Now, Canadians will have the ability to purchase channels on an individual basis, while we're still stuck with content providers demanding their pound of flesh in the form of runaway rights costs.

      It's basically a de-facto indictment of our regulatory agencies, which have actively sought to protect the well funded interests of everyone's universally loathed media superconglomerates.

      For all Americans ramble on about "muh free market competition," we try our hardest to NOT strategically leverage the market as a means of improving both the quality and offerings of content distributors.

      Or maybe the FCC just wants everyone else to foot the bill for their sports channels, just like they want net neutrality to take a backseat to their free, zero-rated Netflix.

      Anyway, that article is far too narrowly focus on the "now" without paying any attention to the fact that innovation and competition could drastically reduce prices in a regulatory environment that empowers consumer choice over corporate profits.

      The regulators just have to channel their inner Trump and WILL themselves through slight force of will to actually do the job they already get paid to do.

      Only then will they be able to make the wireless market great again by striking down anti-competitive, gatekeeper-esque practices like zero-rating, data caps and channel bundles.

      Except, you know, it would really be the innovators and entrepreneurs that'd make the difference once the FCC pried the establishment's stranglehold off the market's neck, which would actually allow it to breathe for a change.

    3. "Only then will they be able to make the wireless market great again by striking down anti-competitive, gatekeeper-esque practices like zero-rating, data caps and channel bundles."

      Yes, imagine if the law were enforced, and Legere faced jail for his massive scam which now illegally throttles video from most providers simply because he does not like them.

    4. Author is a well-known industry expert, and the notion that the article is blind to competition is not credible. More Government regulation of the wireless industry will only increase regulatory compliance costs and stifle innovation. It would raise the already high barriers to entry for new mnos, and discourage new network investment by reducing potential ROI.

    5. First, an "industry expert" is just a lesser shill who needs to stay in the industries' good graces to maintain his position.

      Second, the article makes no mention of how competition and innovation have driven down prices before, or they can do so in the future.

      It completely ignores the possibility of game changers and describes nothing more than the current status quo.

      Third, Microsoft's recent mobile snafu courtesy of an unregulated dog-eat-dog culture shows that the true threat to innovation is an empowered, unchecked establishment that's free to do as it pleases

      In most cases, that means loaning innovation (aka a revolutionary threat to the status quo) a pair of cement shoes.

      In reality, deregulation only helps companies who have no need for innovation because it allows them to cement their place at the top of the economic food chain.

      Without any rules, they can leverage their power and influence to fix the playing field before outspending the competition straight into bankruptcy.

      Even if free market fundamentalists have this faith based belief in a "just market," the very existence of regulations (a man-made bureaucratic construct) is in and of itself proof that markets were never sustainable without oversight.

      If there's no intervention to preserve competition, business will simply be free to collude with one another as a de facto monopoly to secure whatever money can buy until we eventually wind up with a dystopian all-powerful multinational megacorp ruling over society solely for the sake of profit.

      I'm not even joking.

      That's just how the collective ambition of global capitalists, when freed from the constraints of all regulation and oversight, would work.

      And that's why no sane person ever wants corporations, unaccountable to all but their owners and investors, to ever become more powerful than our representative democracy which at least has to keep its serfs happy enough that they vote every year.

      tl;dr the solution to economic problems isn't more economic problems

    6. Very fine strawman argument. Nobody is suggesting we should drop all government law and regulation related to competition, like the Sherman Act, of 1890. Everybody claims they want sensible regulation and oversight, but it's hard to get agreement on what that looks like.
      First, let's not be doomed repeating history when we debate appropriate regulation. Ask you father (and grandfather if necessary) what the telecom industry looked like between 1950 and 1984, when the courts ended AT&T's regulated monopoly, forcing them to sell off their regional companies. The government had set the rules and had to approve changes; e.g., rates. You could buy any phone you wanted in the early days as long it was a black dial phone. White and beige came later. Then that Princess phone! Push buttons! Long distance rates were extremely high; the government approved profit on top of virtually all AT&T costs.
      Thank goodness the courts killed the silly notion that telephone industry was a "natural monopoly" and broke up AT&T. This opened access to technical innovations and the benefits of price competition for customers. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 allowed the long-distance telephone companies to provide local service, and more good things happened.

      The Federal Government did not create all the technologies, make the investments to build the wireless networks or take risks to create the competition that made the industry such a success. It's biggest achievement was to get (mostly) out the way. Let's not go back to the 'bad old days.'

    7. Sorry, dog-eat-dog unregulated capitalism did not cause the Microsoft mobile snafu. The fault was entirely with Microsoft. They failed to provide a compelling product.

  10. The best way to figure out how much wireless data should cost in the US is to compare to other countries. When you do this, you will see that US customers pay more and get less than most other places in the world... including places where the carriers are much more taxed and regulated... and countries like Russia which are more sprawled out than the US.

    1. Wrong. If you read the article linked above you would learn why you cannot compare costs in other countries to those in the US.

    2. I did. It got a lot of facts wrong.

      Consider this part: "One should also consider the challenges of relatively low population density in the U.S., compared to parts of Europe and Asia, which make it more expensive to provide network coverage and capacity."

      If you look at the large countries and the sparse ones outside the US, you will see no justification for this claim. Russia, with its US sized Siberian wasteland, has much cheaper data.

      It is indeed very useful to look at other countries compared to the US,and then you will see that the major providers in this country are vastly overcharging for what would be the fair market value.

      If AT&T were charging a fair value, you'd be getting the Cricket unlimited plan for #35 a month.

      Sprawling mostly-empty countries like Russia, Brazil, Canada, and Kazakhstan have cheaper data than the US.

    3. Siberia, the Amazon and N. Canada have very little coverage. And Canada has significantly higher wireless costs than the US. The article is correct - average population density in coverage areas is much lower in the US than in Europe, Asia and many other countries. And our infrastructure costs are higher than many countries due to higher union wages and regulatory compliance costs. Besides federal regs, each state, city and town can regulate new towers and small cell deployment. New tower can cost from $100k to $250k to deploy.

  11. " And our infrastructure costs are higher than many countries due to higher union wages and regulatory compliance costs"

    Union wages, which mean employees are paid a much higher wage than the fair value (often forcing companies to offshore), do contribute to it. However, many countries with much lower data costs are much more unionized.

Comment Page :