Talk:Boost Mobile (United States)

(This is not an information page. It is all conversation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heather Hartley91 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Free advertising?
I don't get it... what distinguishes this sort of article from an advertisement? Ccoll 15:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Uh...because everything is a clearly-documented fact? It's hardly an advertisement for the service.  R ADICAL B ENDER  &#9733;  16:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * So it doesn't matter that these "facts" are things like the market performance of the company and its advertising slogan? There are even links to the brand's web site. See here the limitations of the non-pov encyclopedic approach: puppetry for the status quo. Not so uh...radical, is it? Ccoll 16:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Uh, yeah, ok...whatever, dude. R ADICAL B ENDER &#9733;  20:22, September 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * He's right. Let's set up the Cingular and T-mobile pages for a mass deletion. --Can Not 22:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you guys are right. "Well known for edgy, bold and irreverent advertising, Boost continues to reflect this irreverent spirit and off-the-wall sense of humor in its advertising and commercials" with no citation, and listing Boost Mobile as being used in new hit movies and television shows like HOTEL FOR DOGS is the exact kind of article wikipedia should promote.  69.38.133.101 (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well said 69.38.133.101. In over two years of editing wikipedia, this article is, without exaggeration, the worst case of blatant free advertising I have ever seen on wikipedia. I have recently removed section of text including "Boost, keeping its foot in its action sports heritage, still runs the popular..." Rest assured I'm adding this page to my watchlist so the absolute clowns who wrote that drivel won't be able to add it back. I have also requested citations for many plugs of different products and their list of people they sponsor. Freikorp (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Triple H Cameo?
I was watching the Travis Barker Boost Mobile commercial, and what caught my attention was that "Kid" Travis's trainer had long-ish hair. Keeping my eyes focused one the trainer, I though he looked like HHH, which would make sense, seeing as there are a lot of muscle bound WWE Wrestlers. So, could perhaps someone could see if that is indeed a HHH Cameo? 65.96.98.74 05:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'll get right on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.64.55 (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

View from the Inside
!!!!!!VIEW FROM THE INSIDE!!!!!! Here you guys go, this is a view from the inside of Boost Mobile and some celarification to all things mentioned on this page.

When you are speaking to a "Boost Mobile" supervisor you are actually speaking with a regular care rep, not an actual supervisor. Actual Supervisors know nothing of the inner workings of Boost Mobile. You see Boost outsources their customer care to three companies Teleperformance USA (TPUSA), Affiliated Computer Services (ACS), and Accent. While Boost standardizes the training that reps get, the three companies are competitors and do not operate on the same page. Only ACS gives it's employee's proper training. At several sites, Supervisors have never even spoken to a boost mobile customer. The most knowledgeble people you can speak to are the care reps that answer the phone. As far as speaking to Boost Corporate is concerned, good luck, contact information is not provided to the three companies because the people at Boost Corporate, wouldn't know how to handle anything without contacting Customer Care themselves.

As for billing issues, it is impossible for Boost to confirm if someone uses the Walkie-Talkie service or not so "TOS" include that if the Walkie-Talkie is intiated both parties are charged $1....it is actually the cheapest way to go, lots of money saved. Ringtone downloads and other downloads are provided through 3rd party vendors and Boost is not at fault for their short comings. Alot of people dont understand the cell phone industry, alot of the charges that appear on your account are not from Boost Mobile, and care agents are not provided any contact info for third party companies.

Yes, Boost mobile does have it's downfalls, but coming from someone who has had years of experience in customer service and cellular technolgies, let me just say "learn everything you can about Boost Mobile" Why?? Because it really is the best pre-paid phone out there. just take time to understand what you are buying


 * I have Nextel and my plan has unlimited chirp.... When I first got it, I got chirps from all kinds of people I didn't know... No doubt because someone before me had the same walkie talkie number... (similar to if you get someone's old telephone number.)
 * Reason being, don't forget Nextel, Boost Mobile, SouthernLinc, or even Telus in Canada etc. etc. etc. Or- for that matter any company with an iDEN made phone by Motorola can chirp to one another.... It may cost you "International Rates" to some chirp numbers, or even local to others but none the less different iDEN carriers have different "area ID's" given out by Motorola and different "Network ID's" that the Carriers themselves hand out See the article on MOTO Talk for more information about the Motorola's "MOTO Talk" service(Which Nextel/Boost rebrands as the name "CHIRP"). CaribDigita 02:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I work for one of the support companies listed above. There's no phone number for the corporate office to register complaints, but you can leave feedback through the Boost website, or through the PO Box the agents give you when you call in. And yes, any time you use the chirp, you get charged, even if you're responding to someone else's alert. Plus, as CaribDigita pointed out, phone & walkie-talkie numbers do get recycled. It's especially bad on pay as you go carriers, as they have a higher turnover rate than standard phones.
 * I would step in to edit the article to be more neutral, but since I work their tech support there might be a conflict of interest issue. -- Kesh 23:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am also an insider and I'd recommend calling until you get the Juarez, Mexico or Bakersfield, CA call centers, as they are #1 and #2 respectively for customer satisfaction.--66.126.39.50 12:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As someone who works for Boost customer care, I can tell you without any doubt that the Juarez site is the absolute WORST. The people there are complete idiots.  Anyone working at any other center will tell you the same thing.  The Hot Springs, AR center is the best center to get.

I, too, work for one of the outsource companies listed above. I just thought I'd chime in with the fact that some people change their walkie talkie numbers multiple times, sometimes within the same day. Many of our customers give out their phone numbers or walkie talkie numbers to people and then, for one reason or another decide they don't want to talk to that person anymore and call to have the number changed. Then, they give out the new number and the endless cycle begins anew. THAT is why you get chirps from people you don't know, harassing you or hanging up on you. NOT because Boost is scamming you for money.

Edits
This article could use a lot of edits, both to be more neutral and more factual. I would do the edits myself, but I work for a company that handles some of Boost Mobile's technical support. By WP:COI, I don't think it'd be a good idea for me to edit the article myself.

Would someone be willing to take my suggested edits and apply them to the article? If so, I'll leave my suggestions here. -- Kesh 23:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody know where Boost Mobile products and refill cards can be purchased wholesale? I have a cellular store and have been unable to get any info from Boost on becoming a dealer... 71.233.108.48 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Wireless USA
 * If you call customer care, they can provide you with information on who you need to get in contact with to become a dealer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.173.156 (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Try calling their customer service? LOL, I'd atleast give that a chance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Can Not (talk • contribs) 22:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

I fail to understand the complaints of bias. Seems to be rather factual and fails to even mention significant favourable info like Boost Mobile is by far the largest pre-paid cellular provider in North America. I know of no factual basis for the statement "Boost will be adding postpaid options next year, which may threaten to put it in almost direct competition with Nextel."

ViajeroAmericano 23:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"By far the largest pre-paid cellular provider in North America"? Really. How many subscribers do they have? How many does Virgin Mobile have? 65.124.139.139 15:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Paladin

In reply to the question of post paid phones, Boost just release this month the "Boost Unlimited" CDMA phone which is currently only available in Texas and California. It's a monthly plan phone that has no SIM card. It is currently only available in the c290 model. -CR

Financial Troubles
Does someone have sources about the recent financial problems linked to Boost Mobile? We need sources before it can be added to the article.

-- I can tell you from personal experience that Boost is having problems. The call center I work in is being shut down and they're laying off all 425 employees that work there. The reason we were given is the fact that the company is bleeding money on the Unlimited service and from what we're hearing, that particular service will be shut down by the end of this year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwehurricane1 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure 67.78.33.30 (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it was true. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Boost Mobile is growing rapidly, just look at a the published earnings report from Sprint Nextel (their parent company). . Boost has recently expanded their customer service team substantially with new call centers, but in the process has also closed down some smaller and under-performing centers. I figure this person was at one of the smaller centers, since 425 people is rather small for a large telecom call center that probably gets many hundreds of thousands of calls a month. His statement that "the reason we were given is the fact that the company is bleeding money," is obviously false, since even if this were true factually no company or its vendor would tell employees such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.184.29 (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Marketing controversy
An IP editor added the sentence "The Media Watch report did not include a response from Boost Mobile and the report did not indicate that Media Watch had ever contacted Boost Mobile for comment." to the Marketing controversy section, using the 'Diagnosis Gullible' reference. I have contacted the Reliable sources noticeboard, who are in agreement with me that this sentence is not appropriate, as it is original research. You can currently find their comment on the WP:RSN main page; in the future you will be able to find it by searching for "Boost Mobile" in the RSN search function. Freikorp (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Before the edits began, this section had several problems: the section was incorrectly titled, it was overly detailed per WP:UNDUE and it was lopsided per WP:NPOV.
 * "Controversy", which can be defined as "a discussion marked by the expression of opposing views" clearly is not appropriate here - there is neither discussion nor opposing views. The section has been retitled.
 * To expand on the point above, this section relies on statements gathered by one source, Media Watch, and all the statements made by Media Watch are negative, making the source material itself unbalanced. The report does not at any time offer any opposing views from Boost itself or anyone else. Basing an entire section on the opinion of only one source is clearly not a good editing practice, especially when that source only presents one side of the topic.
 * This section was unnecessarily detailed. At best this merits just a few sentences indicating that Boost initiated a viral marketing campaign but misrepresented academic research and that certain media outlets failed to identify the viral nature of the campaign and its fictional disorders.
 * If opposing views or additional critical commentary from other reliable sources can't be found, this information does merit inclusion in this article at all. Wikipedia is not the place to report ephemera per WP:INDISCRIMINATE 71.212.68.92 (talk) 05:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Your gall is amazing. First you add your own original research, which I assumed good faith for, but when your original research was deemed by a neutral third party to not be worthy of inclusion, and was accordingly removed, your response was to add it back anyway, giving absolutely no reason for your actions. As if that wasn't enough, your next step was to delete the entire section, when you knew very well this bold move would have been contested.


 * I'm more than happy for the section to be shortened. I've made a minor change to your latest round of bold edits; as it stands I only have one concern with your changes - the section title. "Controversy" can be defined many ways. Boost clearly think their actions are appropriate, and Media Watch oppose this view, accordingly I'd say Boost's actions generated some controversy, even if it was only from one source. I think it would be appropriate to include either the word "controversy" or "criticism" in the section title; "Marketing criticism" seems the most appropriate to me.


 * You're being unrealistic about criticism on wikipedia. There is no rule about not being allowed to add criticism to wikipedia if the subject of said criticism has not responded to it, or if the criticism only came from one source. If there was I dare say you'd be able to remove criticism from hundreds of thousands of articles, including many featured ones. Justification for keeping criticism would be based on both the amount of criticism and the source it came from. In this case - yes there is currently only one source - but that source devotes an entire article that demonstrates in depth research of the issue. The source is an established one with a reputation for accuracy. I firmly believe this source holds enough weight to back up the three sentences that currently appear in the article, and I will be more than happy for someone to take the issue to one of wikipedia's dispute resolution processes for another neutral third opinion on the matter. Freikorp (talk) 07:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not exactly serious criticism, but I've found a passing mention of the issue: this article in The Age states that the disorders "identified" by Boost are not real, and that they are a "ruse used in a press release ... to get the company's name mentioned in the media". Freikorp (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Your characterization of another editor's behavior in the first paragraph of your response above is inappropriate. No one attacked or provoked you in any way, so there's no reason for you to act inappropriately. Please show more maturity as we continue to discuss the issue.


 * Regarding criticism on Wikipedia - Wikipedia does not record insubstantial events that have negligible long term effect on the subject or society. Put another way, Wikipedia is not a catalog of every event that has ever happened no matter how small. The issue we are discussing was a one time marketing campaign that had zero negative effects on consumers and only one critic. According to the Media Watch report, nothing bad happened: no one was injured or killed, no one was defrauded or lost any money and no one suffered psychological trauma. Further, the regulators did not get involved and no politicians called for an investigation. Did the Advertising Standards Bureau take any action? (In the three month period of June - August 2010 I found no ASB reports filed by anyone on any issue against Boost Mobile. If this is such a critical issue, shouldn't at least one person have been upset enough to file a complaint?) If Media Watch makes critical statements and nobody else shows any interest, perhaps the criticism isn't noteworthy? If the criticism is not notable, why is it included in the article? Just because Media Watch put a lot of work into something doesn't make it a significant event (which it clearly isn't since no one else took up the cause).


 * Controversy means that there is debate or discussion or disagreement. Controversy is not an appropriate characterization because there is only one view presented from one critic.


 * It's fair to ask, why is it important to include this? What is the context? Has Boost Mobile Australia done this several times and each time knowingly engaged in questionable behaviour or incompetence (such as mis-representing academic research)? Does Boost Mobile Australia have a demonstrable history of marketing behaviour that harms consumers? Is this part of a pattern? If this is just a one-time thing, a blip on the radar, why was it being given such prominence before the major recent edit? What is it about this that justifies a long, multi-paragraph, solely negative record of events, in detail, from a single critic? 71.212.64.231 (talk) 07:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you honestly think that reverting another users explained edits, without giving any explanation for your actions, is not an act of provocation? Ignoring other users arguments shows a severe lack of respect, and now you've accused me of being immature for criticising your actions. Amazing.


 * I already said, I had no problems with the section being shortened, in retrospect the section was previously given too much weight. Why was the section so large to begin with? I added it to the article over two years ago, when the incident had just happened, and when I was less experienced at giving incidents an appropriate amount of weight in an article. Please read WP:Assume good faith. I'm actually quite pleased with your last edit which shortened the section, that was a fair edit.


 * Why is it important to include this? As this is a neutral article, I think it's fair to mention to the reader what this company is willing to do to make a dollar. I'm not suggesting anybody was killed by this incident, I certainly don't think it is a huge scandal, but I think it's fair to mention that this company is willing to deceive the media with fictional psychological disorders just to get their name mentioned, and is willing to misrepresent academic research in the process. Some companies don't have to be so deceptive just to sell their products.


 * Have a look at the rest of the article: the article devotes 12 sentences to sports events that Boost sponsors. Not only is there not a single reference to support these 12 sentences, some of them have been requesting a citation for over two years. There are also 14 unreferenced sentences in the US "Marketing" section. Why is it important to name all 61 phones Boost offers? Especially since there is no references for that section either. This article is in the category "Mobile virtual network operators". Of the 90 companies listed in that category, Boost is one of of only seven to have a bullet-point list of phones offered. Five of the other six companies with a list of phones offered have around 10 or less in their lists (giving the impression only popular or current phones were listed), and the last one has 23, compared to Boosts 61. Boost are clearly not the largest company in the list. Do you think that is undue weight? It's fair to ask, if your concern is actually removing undue weight from this article, why are you so focused on removing the only criticism in the article, 3 sentences with a reference, when there are clearly much bigger cases of undue weight within the article, that have no references at all.


 * When I had a problem with one of your edits, I took the issue to a neutral third party. I disagree with your wishes to completely remove the section. I suggest you contact one of wikipedia's dispute resolution processes for a third opinion. Unlike you, I will take a third opinion into consideration, rather than completely ignoring it. Freikorp (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

So if there are no further comments I will remove the neutrality tag and change the sub-section title to reflect what the section actually contains - 'Marketing criticism'. Freikorp (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Freikorp (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Phones
As noted in my comments in the section above: This Boost article lists 61 phones offered. More than twice as many as the next highest number for articles in the category 'Mobile virtual network operators', and literally 10 times as many as most other operators.

Firstly this section contains no references. Secondly I find it extremely hard to believe that if I walked into a Boost store I would find all 61 phones currently available for purchase. I would propose that the section is divided into current and former phones however this solution does not take into account issues of undue weight and the lack of references. I am not sure of which phones are currently offered and which are not. I suggest somebody who does know drastically shorten the list to the more popular phones that Boost currently offers (I'd suggest to a maximum of around 20 phones). If this is not done I propose deleting the entire section. Freikorp (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Section removed as there have been no objections to my after proposal after one week of waiting. I am not against adding a small phones section back, however, please do not do so without a reference for each phone. Freikorp (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

disambig needed
"Boost Mobile" is also the name of an episode of the USA television show Aqua Teen Hunger Force, in which the phone company is parodized. Nicole Sharp (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Boost has been assigned Virgin Mobile's customers and phone numbers.
Sprint has apparently decided to phase out the Virgin Mobile name and beginning in February, 2020, has assigned their accounts to Boost, described as Virgin’s sister network. My number has already been transferred over with no difference in phone, telephone number, price, service or terms that I can discern, at least so far. I hope it remains that way. Maybe someone can add this new development to the article as I'm not very tech capable, alas. (I didn't even know that Sprint apparently owned Virgin Mobile USA until I read this article, nor had I even heard of Boost Mobile.) Thanks.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s interesting, but the talk pages are used to discuss improvements to the article, not the subject itself. ShadowCyclone   talk  19:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * @ShadowCyclone I find your comment to be puzzling. If you read this article, you'll see that it contains a company history and this recent development will fit in perfectly as it mentions Sprint's acquisition of both Boost and Virgin USA.  It can be added at the bottom of the history section and will fit in very nicely.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn’t see that part of your sentence. I will add it. ShadowCyclone   talk  20:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, thank you! BestHistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Section move proposal
I propose that Boost Mobile Australia be merged with Optus its parent company article, or that Boost Mobile USA be merged with Dish Network their parent company’s article

My reason behind this proposed merge is due to many factors the important ones being that:


 * Boost Mobile in Australia is no longer associated with the Boost Mobile USA and has not been since 2012.


 * The Boost Mobile Page is to long and needs to be shortened the most obvious way to shortened the article is for one of the two sections to merge with its parent company's article (either Boost Mobile Australia with Optus or Boost Mobile USA with Dish Network).


 * it is confusing to have two different corporations that are not associated with each other sharing a page. It’s not practical and just does not make sense.

In conclusion I think it makes sense and works best that we merge one of the sections with its parent company article either Boost Mobile Australia with Optus or Boost Mobile USA with Dish Network. BigRed606 (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Merge BMA with Optus Similar brand names but different corporations warrant their own article separate from each other, that’s like if I put Sky UK and SKY Brasil under the same page. I think the Boost Mobile USA section has enough notability to stay on this page, but the Australia corporation should be merged into Optus. ShadowCyclone  talk  20:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That (Shadow's input) sounds like a reasonable compromise. I'm for that.  Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree with you guys as I said before I think it makes more sense for one of these sections to be merged into the parent company’s article. Thank you very much for all of you responding and your thoughts. Ps I think it makes sense as well for the Boost Mobile Australia section to be merged to its parent company (Optus),  article as well. BigRed606 (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Update  after doing some research I discovered that the Boost Mobile in Australia is not owned by Optus, moreover it seems that the more appropriate way to resolve this situation is to merge the Boost Mobile USA section with its parent companies article Dish Network. To make the Boost Mobile in Australia be enough to be it’s on stand alone article I will expand that section before I merge the Boost Mobile USA section with Dish Network. If all you agree. BigRed606 (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable and okay with me. Thanks for asking for my input! Best regardsHistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Split I believe the page should be split into to two articles, one for the United States and one for Australia. There's enough material for Boost Mobile to be its own page. Boost Mobile USA has been under different owners, which were Nextel, Sprint, and now Dish, so it wouldn't make sense to merge the article with Dish. Dash9Z (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Split I also agree with a split. This page should likely be turned into a disambiguation page leading to the US and Australian articles. I further think Dish Wireless should be split from Dish Network and then US Boost Mobile could be merged into that (along with Ting Mobile and possibly Republic Wireless). —Uzume (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

"Update tag" and speculation about internal divisions at Boost
I have just restored the previous version, removing the tag that the article needs to be updated. This was the edit summary:

Completely Random Guy (talk | contribs | block)    rollback: 1 edit

(Boost now has a postpaid service called "Boost Infinite" suggesting 2 divisions within the Boost company, one postpaid and one prepaid. Furthermore In earlier versions of Apple's operating system iOS, pre-iOS 17 versions, it was labeled as "Boost Mobile", starting with iOS 17 it has been shorted to simply Boost, further supporting the idea that Boost has 2 divisions within it's company. I will update and add to this article relating to it at a future date.) BCorr &#124; Брайен 22:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello all! Boost recently, (not sure how long ago as I didn't hear about Boost Infinite until last week) fully launched a new service called Boost Infinite. The difference being Infinite is a postpaid service and Boost Mobile remains prepaid. Furthermore I will try to find the link and post it here, but I came across a reddit screenshot, of someone claiming to being using Boost Infinite, on iOS 17, and whereas previous versions of iOS no matter the Boost service, whether Mobile or Infinite, called it "Boost Mobile". Now it appears according to the screenshot that in newer software versions of at least one operating system, it will be shortened to just "Boost". It seems as if the MVNO is taking a foray into the postpaid industry, basically giving Boost two different divisions. Prepaid known as Boost Mobile, and Postpaid known as Boost Infinite. I have actually called Boost Infinite as I bought a SIM card from them to try out the service, and was asking them questions about Boost Mobile. They then wanted to transfer me to a what they called "Boost Mobile rep", suggesting to me that it is a different service or offering under the same company.
 * My proposal is as follows, at some point in the near future when I have time, I'll contribute to this article about the Boost Infinite service and expand this page. But for now, I propose, or at least after I complete my additions; changing the name of the article from "Boost Mobile" to something like "Boost (mobile network). Completely Random Guy (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Can we get an article created for mobilex owned by peter adderton
https://walmart.mymobilex.com 199.58.183.162 (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)