Related
On paper, Sprint and T-Mobile seem like complete opposites: Sprint has 4G, T-Mobile has "4G speeds" with HSPA+; Sprint is CDMA, T-Mobile is GSM; Sprint is yellow, T-Mobile is magenta. Ok, maybe that last one is a bit of a stretch, but you get the point. Despite the glaring differences, a rumor has surfaced today stating that the two carriers may soon be in cahoots to finish building out Sprint's 4G network. Three people "familiar with the situation" have spoken to the Wall Street Journal, saying that Sprint's board of directors is considering allowing T-Mobile to invest in Clearwire, the company that is aiding Sprint with their WiMAX network (Sprint also owns 54 percent of Clearwire). Clearwire currently needs billions of dollars to finished expanding its 4G network, the WSJ says, and it needs to figure out if it will continue to soldier on alone or get some financial aid from T-Mobile. This isn't the first time we've heard the possibility of Sprint and T-Mobile teaming up and, if Clearwire and Sprint need as much cash as the WSJ says they do, it may not be the last time.
Although Sprint and T-Mobile could use each other to help bring the fight to AT&T and Verizon, I would be kind of surprised to the number three and four carriers come together. T-Mobile seems pretty invested in their HSPA+ network upgrades and, if they were to invest in WiMAX, their hot new HSPA+ phones would become kind of obsolete. It would, however, allow them to immediately have a 4G network available to some of its customers, so maybe the idea isn't so far-fetched. What do you think, readers? Will we soon be hearing about SprinT-Mobile?
source: http://www.phonedog.com/2010/09/03/rumor-sprint-and-t-mobile-may-team-up-to-complete-4g-network/
I'll believe it when I see it. Number three and number four? I agree with T being four in terms of network Sprint is #2 behind Verizon last I heard.
auau465121 said:
On paper, Sprint and T-Mobile seem like complete opposites: Sprint has 4G, T-Mobile has "4G speeds" with HSPA+; Sprint is CDMA, T-Mobile is GSM; Sprint is yellow, T-Mobile is magenta. Ok, maybe that last one is a bit of a stretch, but you get the point. Despite the glaring differences, a rumor has surfaced today stating that the two carriers may soon be in cahoots to finish building out Sprint's 4G network. Three people "familiar with the situation" have spoken to the Wall Street Journal, saying that Sprint's board of directors is considering allowing T-Mobile to invest in Clearwire, the company that is aiding Sprint with their WiMAX network (Sprint also owns 54 percent of Clearwire). Clearwire currently needs billions of dollars to finished expanding its 4G network, the WSJ says, and it needs to figure out if it will continue to soldier on alone or get some financial aid from T-Mobile. This isn't the first time we've heard the possibility of Sprint and T-Mobile teaming up and, if Clearwire and Sprint need as much cash as the WSJ says they do, it may not be the last time.
Although Sprint and T-Mobile could use each other to help bring the fight to AT&T and Verizon, I would be kind of surprised to the number three and four carriers come together. T-Mobile seems pretty invested in their HSPA+ network upgrades and, if they were to invest in WiMAX, their hot new HSPA+ phones would become kind of obsolete. It would, however, allow them to immediately have a 4G network available to some of its customers, so maybe the idea isn't so far-fetched. What do you think, readers? Will we soon be hearing about SprinT-Mobile?
source: http://www.phonedog.com/2010/09/03/rumor-sprint-and-t-mobile-may-team-up-to-complete-4g-network/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Last I read, Sprint is moving forward with LTE purchases. That opens talks again with T.
T will not move to wimax.
Bielinsk said:
Last I read, Sprint is moving forward with LTE purchases. That opens talks again with T.
T will not move to wimax.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I heard that too... but HSPA+ is not LTE and neither are technically 4G. i dont really consider wimax to to be 4G either thou.
"An IMT-Advanced cellular system must have target peak data rates of up to approximately 100 Mbit/s for high mobility such as mobile access and up to approximately 1 Gbit/s for low mobility such as nomadic/local wireless access, according to the ITU requirements. Scalable bandwidths up to at least 40 MHz should be provided."
I dont want a merger lol less competition equals more money from my pockets. There is plenty of competition right now though among the monthly plan companies keeping things low I guess.
Also it sounds like T-Mobile would be paying Sprint to help build 4G and T-Mobile would get in reward to use 4G. So... now we gotta share with T-Mobile. Also I bet if we start sharing we get capped. I mean currently 4G is uncapped mostly because there arnt a huge network of people using all of its resources.
twilk73 said:
I dont want a merger lol less competition equals more money from my pockets. There is plenty of competition right now though among the monthly plan companies keeping things low I guess.
Also it sounds like T-Mobile would be paying Sprint to help build 4G and T-Mobile would get in reward to use 4G. So... now we gotta share with T-Mobile. Also I bet if we start sharing we get capped. I mean currently 4G is uncapped mostly because there arnt a huge network of people using all of its resources.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not quite. The reason there aren't any worries with WiMax is because of the huge amounts of bandwidth Clearwire and Sprint have access to. The bandwidth combined with the shorter range of towers means that the network can handle a lot of people using the network at any given time. T-mobile is small enough, it shouldn't make a big enough difference. The bandwidth part won't change if they ever convert to LTE, so Clear and Sprint have the advantage right now due to having the only functioning 4G capable network and the ability to upgrade that network relatively effortlessly, and still have enough bandwidth to beat Verizon/everyone else.
I actually don't think this is a bad idea. If it would help expedite the expansion of the 4G network then onward and upward I say. For the amount of bandwidth that T-Mo would gain access to it would be a benefit to them. And maybe Sprint could get some pointers from T-Mo on customer service. Sprint has come a long way in that respect since we signed up, but I hear a lot of T customers swear by the service they get. All in all it sounds like it could have a win-win for both companies and the customers. Then again corporate America has an amazing penchant for screwing up what could otherwise be a good thing. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Rumor has been going around for quite some time - today was hardly the first mention of this in the media...
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
Pierceye said:
I actually don't think this is a bad idea. If it would help expedite the expansion of the 4G network then onward and upward I say. For the amount of bandwidth that T-Mo would gain access to it would be a benefit to them. And maybe Sprint could get some pointers from T-Mo on customer service. Sprint has come a long way in that respect since we signed up, but I hear a lot of T customers swear by the service they get. All in all it sounds like it could have a win-win for both companies and the customers. Then again corporate America has an amazing penchant for screwing up what could otherwise be a good thing. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You would be right.my brother had/has nothing but great things to say about tmobile cs.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
I wish they would team up so I could get my hands on a G2.
Edit: 05/01/11: Visit http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/hotdocket/list and let the FCC know about your opinions in regards to this.
Edit 03/20/11: http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/articles/more-information-att-acquires-tmobile
AT&T to Acquire T-Mobile USA from Deutsche Telekom
Provides Fast, Efficient and Certain Solution to Impending Spectrum Exhaust Challenges Facing AT&T and T-Mobile USA in Key Markets Due to Explosive Demand for Mobile Broadband
Enhances Network Capacity, Output and Quality in Near Term for Both Companies' Customers
...
DALLAS & BONN, Germany--(BUSINESS WIRE)--AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T) and Deutsche Telekom AG (FWB: DTE) today announced that they have entered into a definitive agreement under which AT&T will acquire T-Mobile USA from Deutsche Telekom in a cash-and-stock transaction currently valued at approximately $39 billion. The agreement has been approved by the Boards of Directors of both companies.
"This transaction represents a major commitment to strengthen and expand critical infrastructure for our nation's future."
AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile USA provides an optimal combination of network assets to add capacity sooner than any alternative, and it provides an opportunity to improve network quality in the near term for both companies' customers. In addition, it provides a fast, efficient and certain solution to the impending exhaustion of wireless spectrum in some markets, which limits both companies' ability to meet the ongoing explosive demand for mobile broadband.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/20/atandt-agrees-to-buy-t-mobile-from-deutsche-telekom/
http://www.tmonews.com/2011/03/breaking-att-acquires-t-mobile-from-deutsche-telekom/
WHAT THE..?
So much for t-mobiles awesome data plans. Goodbye Unlimited.
what are the chances that current Tmo's users will have their ETF waived? I will not stand for 2gb a month, that is absolutely crap
This is horrible!!!!!!!!!
Bye Bye unlimited data!!!! UGHGHGHGH
Bye bye unlimited, Hello Big Red? ahhh CDMA
AT&T Inc. (T: News ) said it has agreed to acquire T-Mobile USA from Deutsche Telekom AG in a cash-and-stock transaction currently valued at about $39 billion. The transaction is expected to close in about 12 months, subject to regulatory approvals, a reverse breakup fee in certain circumstances, and other customary regulatory and other closing conditions.
Hopefully this gets disapproved?
DO NOT WANT.
Sent from my bathroom, with toilet paper.
........ This sucks..
Going to sprint once it changes over
Google and Sprint, sitting in a tree...N-E-X-U-S-4G! I cant imagine why Google would transfer to AT&T as there carrier of choice.
I love T-Mobiles unlimited data and tethering
I also loved the no contract plan I am on, but it is time to move on. I think I'll switch to Sprint: http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/20/atandt-agrees-to-buy-t-mobile-from-deutsche-telekom/
I already started a thread about this: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1000945
So you think we wont really see changes till next year then? Like in plans etc
Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk
Jrbourque said:
So you think we wont really see changes till next year then? Like in plans etc
Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We won't.. it has to go through approval through regulations. I'm hoping it won't be passed/approved.
We should totally start a petition or twitter trend topic on this and voice our opinions on AT&T buying out T-Mobile USA.
Ahh crapola! Makes more sense I guess - than Sprint buying Tmobile (due to the HSPA+), but if this means losing my "unlimited" everything - then, hello Sprint!
I am really worried about the future of the nexus line ...i guess it will go back to only available unsubsidized...ATT hates the android hacking community so I can't see them playing ball on the nexus
i am going to miss being able to afford my phone bill
I must be the only person who thinks this is good news... T-Mobile's data coverage in SLC is so spotty it's almost useless.
Will miss tmobile. . . Hello sprint. . . Wondering how quickly I can move my lines.
Sent from my MSM using XDA App
Guess once this goes through my next phone will be a Sprint Nexus. I won't do a 2GB data cap. This really sucks!!
newspeak said:
I am really worried about the future of the nexus line ...i guess it will go back to only available unsubsidized...ATT hates the android hacking community so I can't see them playing ball on the nexus
i am going to miss being able to afford my phone bill
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, it sucks that T-Mobile USA is being sold away because without a doubt it's the only carrier that really supports Android development. It has always encouraged it.
Like I said in a previous post:
We should totally start a petition or twitter trend topic on this and voice our opinions on AT&T buying out T-Mobile USA.
-- We should voice our opinions and do everything in our power to prevent this from happening. I don't use twitter, so yeah. If you want to start it up, I'll edit OP.
zephiK said:
I already started a thread about this: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1000945
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did not see that until after i posted this one in a mix of rage and sorrow.
Mods, please delete this thread, it is just duplicate content
We need to get a petition going to stop this, and maybe even a second one to try to push Google to buy T-Mobile (If they are bent on selling and it was not just a too good to be true offer from AT&T)
The merger will lead to less competition and worse service for us:
fightthemerger.com
What if I actually support the merger? Is there a "supportthemerger.com" website around?
Honestly, much as I'm against big businesses lumping together into super-goliath monsters... I think AT&T will actually benefit greatly from a T-Mobile merger. Mostly because they'll have lots more spectrum for LTE than any of the competition.
More spectrum = better coverage & better throughput.
What's wrong with that?
+1 most captivate users have AT&T. We are the "winners" rofl
no thanks
It's really a win-win
TMo customers get better coverage, and ATT customers get more 4G.
Shammyh said:
What if I actually support the merger? Is there a "supportthemerger.com" website around?
Honestly, much as I'm against big businesses lumping together into super-goliath monsters... I think AT&T will actually benefit greatly from a T-Mobile merger. Mostly because they'll have lots more spectrum for LTE than any of the competition.
More spectrum = better coverage & better throughput.
What's wrong with that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
good point and I would agree if there were market pressure to push AT&T to utilize the bandwith, but they only have incentive to elliminate competition or improve service just enough, they have no reason to max out benefits to us users beyond what they need to avoid threat of us leaving for greener pastures...
Shammyh said:
What if I actually support the merger? Is there a "supportthemerger.com" website around?
Honestly, much as I'm against big businesses lumping together into super-goliath monsters... I think AT&T will actually benefit greatly from a T-Mobile merger. Mostly because they'll have lots more spectrum for LTE than any of the competition.
More spectrum = better coverage & better throughput.
What's wrong with that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well, yeah, AT&T will benefit from it... why else would they even pursue the acquisition? I don't care if they benefit or not, I care about protecting the consumer, and any merger of this magnitude does not have the consumer's best interests at heart.
While everyone is entitled to their own opinions, I firmly believe that the merger is bad news for consumers across the board. There are several reasons why, but here are five easy ones.
1. AT&T claims that this merger will create American jobs and increase investment. Sure, it might create new jobs, but more than 20,000 T-Mobile workers are expected to loose their jobs so AT&T can achieve post-merger "synergies." AT&T insists that this takeover is good for American workers because some of T-Mobile's employees will now be free to unionize. This is a benefit for those lucky enough to survive post-merger integration, but it doesn't offset the harm to the 20,000 other T-Mobile workers whom AT&T will fire. And despite AT&T's claims that it will increase investment, the company has told Wall Street it plans to cut investment by $10 billion if the deal goes through.
2. AT&T says that the elimination of T-Mobile as a competitor doesn't matter because most Americans still have other providers to choose from. In actuality this merger will give AT&T and Verizon 80 percent of the market, and no other carrier has the spectrum or other advantages of these giants. In any other industry, this much concentration between two companies would be unthinkable. The top two "too big to fail" U.S. banks collectively control only 20 percent of the U.S. market. In the wireless sector, smaller companies already struggle against AT&T and Verizon's dominance, and this merger will only make it harder for them to compete.
3. AT&T claims that this merger will not increase prices. However, AT&T uses misleading data to claim that post mergers led to price declines. But the facts show that consumers' monthly bills have increased even as wireless carriers' own costs to offer services have dropped sharply. The truth is that mobile data users are paying more for wireless services as the market has consolidated, and AT&T and Verizon's elimination of unlimited data plans will only exacerbate this trend. Voice services are not getting cheaper, either, because carriers are forcing customers to buy more minutes than they will use. Indeed, the data AT&T uses to justify its claim of declining prices actually show that the per minute price of a cellphone call has declined, but this hides the fact that the total amount customers pay each month has increased even as carriers' costs have decreased. AT&T told Wall Street that it will increase the revenue it extracts from T-Mobile customers. The loss of a competitor means all consumers will see higher prices.
4. AT&T says this merger is necessary to ensure rural Americans have access to next-generation mobile Internet, when, even if the deal is blocked, 97% of Americans will have 4G services available from at least two carriers by 2014. AT&T told the FCC it would deploy 4G "HSPA+" services to 97 percent of the country even if the merger were blocked. Verizon's entire network will be 4G "LTE" capable by 2014. There is not a single American who needs this merger to get 4G mobile services. AT&T now says it will stop its 4G "LTE" deployment at just 80 percent of the country. But would AT&T really cede this marketing advantage to Verizon? Of course not. It will make the minimal investment needed to have an all-LTE network even if the merger is blocked.
5. AT&T claims that this merger is necessary to alleviate congestion on their network. Actually, AT&T's claim of capacity issues is a sham, because the company has vast spectrum holdings it doesn't even use. The notion that AT&T must acquire T-Mobile to relieve network congestion is baseless, given that it is the only national wireless carrier that isn't using its next-generation spectrum holdings. AT&T's quality issues are not the result of shortage of spectrum, but of its own failure to make timely network investments. Instead of competing fairly in the free market, AT&T is asking the government to help it acquire more spectrum by killing off a competitor.
cajunflavoredbob said:
While everyone is entitled to their own opinions, I firmly believe that the merger is bad news for consumers across the board. There are several reasons why, but here are five easy ones.
1. AT&T claims that this merger will create American jobs and increase investment. Sure, it might create new jobs, but more than 20,000 T-Mobile workers are expected to loose their jobs so AT&T can achieve post-merger "synergies." AT&T insists that this takeover is good for American workers because some of T-Mobile's employees will now be free to unionize. This is a benefit for those lucky enough to survive post-merger integration, but it doesn't offset the harm to the 20,000 other T-Mobile workers whom AT&T will fire. And despite AT&T's claims that it will increase investment, the company has told Wall Street it plans to cut investment by $10 billion if the deal goes through.
2. AT&T says that the elimination of T-Mobile as a competitor doesn't matter because most Americans still have other providers to choose from. In actuality this merger will give AT&T and Verizon 80 percent of the market, and no other carrier has the spectrum or other advantages of these giants. In any other industry, this much concentration between two companies would be unthinkable. The top two "too big to fail" U.S. banks collectively control only 20 percent of the U.S. market. In the wireless sector, smaller companies already struggle against AT&T and Verizon's dominance, and this merger will only make it harder for them to compete.
3. AT&T claims that this merger will not increase prices. However, AT&T uses misleading data to claim that post mergers led to price declines. But the facts show that consumers' monthly bills have increased even as wireless carriers' own costs to offer services have dropped sharply. The truth is that mobile data users are paying more for wireless services as the market has consolidated, and AT&T and Verizon's elimination of unlimited data plans will only exacerbate this trend. Voice services are not getting cheaper, either, because carriers are forcing customers to buy more minutes than they will use. Indeed, the data AT&T uses to justify its claim of declining prices actually show that the per minute price of a cellphone call has declined, but this hides the fact that the total amount customers pay each month has increased even as carriers' costs have decreased. AT&T told Wall Street that it will increase the revenue it extracts from T-Mobile customers. The loss of a competitor means all consumers will see higher prices.
4. AT&T says this merger is necessary to ensure rural Americans have access to next-generation mobile Internet, when, even if the deal is blocked, 97% of Americans will have 4G services available from at least two carriers by 2014. AT&T told the FCC it would deploy 4G "HSPA+" services to 97 percent of the country even if the merger were blocked. Verizon's entire network will be 4G "LTE" capable by 2014. There is not a single American who needs this merger to get 4G mobile services. AT&T now says it will stop its 4G "LTE" deployment at just 80 percent of the country. But would AT&T really cede this marketing advantage to Verizon? Of course not. It will make the minimal investment needed to have an all-LTE network even if the merger is blocked.
5. AT&T claims that this merger is necessary to alleviate congestion on their network. Actually, AT&T's claim of capacity issues is a sham, because the company has vast spectrum holdings it doesn't even use. The notion that AT&T must acquire T-Mobile to relieve network congestion is baseless, given that it is the only national wireless carrier that isn't using its next-generation spectrum holdings. AT&T's quality issues are not the result of shortage of spectrum, but of its own failure to make timely network investments. Instead of competing fairly in the free market, AT&T is asking the government to help it acquire more spectrum by killing off a competitor.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great post!
I pretty much agree with bleach168. But I do think coverage will generally be better for both AT&T and T-Mobile users. For example, once the merger was announced, suddenly my T-Mobile phone worked on AT&T in rual areas it never did before. No doubt as demonstration to officials of the advantages of merging networks. But simple roaming agreements could have done the same without a merger looming.
Of course any service improvements will come at a price. The merger is much more about making money than better service. Loss of competition will hurt. T-Mobile customers will certainly pay more, and likely so will AT&T users.
So today I signed up for 2 lines of T-Mo's unlimited talk, text & data for $49.99 each. Too good to pass up. And hopefully I can stay grandfathered in with that after AT&T takes over.
From HTC G2 with xda premium.
joeybear23 said:
no thanks
It's really a win-win
TMo customers get better coverage, and ATT customers get more 4G.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really, I keep saying either 1 of 2 things can happen:
1: AT&T does merge with T-Mobile, AT&T will cripple the T-Mobile plans, services, and network.
or
2: AT&T does merge with T-Mobile, and AT&T leaves T-Mobile the way it is, just share the name, devices, and cell towers to make better coverage for both companies.
Kid Poker said:
Not really, I keep saying either 1 of 2 things can happen:
1: AT&T does merge with T-Mobile, AT&T will cripple the T-Mobile plans, services, and network.
or
2: AT&T does merge with T-Mobile, and AT&T leaves T-Mobile the way it is, just share the name, devices, and cell towers to make better coverage for both companies.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did these things happen with either the AllTel or Cingular acquisitions? I remember both...
Or 3: AT&T doesn't merge with T-Mobile, Deutsche Telekom pockets a cool $3 bn, kills T-Mobile anyway and butchers the corpse into little pieces and sells them to the highest bidder (likely AT&T).
Either way, AT&T and DT win, the consumers in America lose.
joeybear23 said:
Did these things happen with either the AllTel or Cingular acquisitions? I remember both...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't remember AllTel but I do remember Cingular
Kid Poker said:
I don't remember AllTel but I do remember Cingular
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea, and neither one benefited consumers. Quality of service and pricing have increased sharply ever since then despite the fact that they originally told the customers the same crap that they're saying now about T-Mobile. I left Cingular after the buyout because the quality of service went down the toilet. I'm with T-Mobile to stay away from AT&T. They are an evil and greedy company.
Doomsday is coming as evil AT&T nears !!
joeybear23 said:
no thanks
It's really a win-win
TMo customers get better coverage, and ATT customers get more 4G.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except for the fact att has the worst customer service on the planet. i swear the just pull people in off the street without training them and giving them a headset and off they go .....
As well as always trying to inflate the bill beit through some eroneous charge or otherwise. im really not looking foward to att Tmobile has always had great service and reception
I agree with CajunFlavoredBob. This merger (which is a misnomer it's actually an ACQUISITION!! ) will do absolutely nothing to make things better. AT&T customers will be subject to the same crap they have always dealt with, and T-Mo customers will have higher prices and crappier service ( I pay twenty dollars per line (3 lines) for 5GBs of unthrottled data...AT&T wants forty five dollars per line for 4GBs and it's NOT throttled after the 4GB limit, they charge overages!!!)...not to mention waiting ages for the next Nexus device. This is not a good thing. If you believe otherwise....well...keep drinking that kool-aid...you obviously like the way it tastes....
Babydoll25 said:
I agree with CajunFlavoredBob. This merger (which is a misnomer it's actually an ACQUISITION!! ) will do absolutely nothing to make things better. AT&T customers will be subject to the same crap they have always dealt with, and T-Mo customers will have higher prices and crappier service ( I pay twenty dollars per line (3 lines) for 5GBs of unthrottled data...AT&T wants forty five dollars per line for 4GBs and it's NOT throttled after the 4GB limit, they charge overages!!!)...not to mention waiting ages for the next Nexus device. This is not a good thing. If you believe otherwise....well...keep drinking that kool-aid...you obviously like the way it tastes....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I didn't even get to mention pricing differences. lol
I only pay $50 a month for 1000 minutes ($30), unlimited text($10), and unlimited data + tethering($10). It's the same plan I've had for five years now.
Even still, new customers can sign up for nearly the same thing right now for only $80. A similar plan on AT&T is $100.
Shammyh said:
What if I actually support the merger? Is there a "supportthemerger.com" website around?
Honestly, much as I'm against big businesses lumping together into super-goliath monsters... I think AT&T will actually benefit greatly from a T-Mobile merger. Mostly because they'll have lots more spectrum for LTE than any of the competition.
More spectrum = better coverage & better throughput.
What's wrong with that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How very naive.
1. At&t already own most of the spectrum across the states, in fact in the big radio spectrum auction of 2008, T-Mobile did'n't win a single auction whereas AT&T spent over $5bn on 300+ licences. This probably means that T-Mobile is actually leasing its bandwidth from another provider in the states (US Cellular).
2. If the buyout is successful, there is no reason to simulate competition between what will essentially be two fronts of the same company. AT&T being the bigger fish (and therefore having economy of scale advantages which mean more profit per customer) will either cripple T-Mobile's cheaper US service, or outright merge it with the main brand, removing all of T-Mobile's advantages in the process, eating it's market share, and phasing out it's price plans in favour of AT&T's more expensive ones.
3. Some people might wonder why you would buy a company just to cripple it, look no further than Microsoft to see the advantages of a market monopoly (and before you say Apple, look how much shares MSFT have in them, they make almost as much money off Apple as Apple do). The real reason AT wants T-mobile is twofold and nothing to do with the obvious....
One, AT&T owns all the spectrum it needs, T-Mobile is a Tier 2 internet provider (owning international network lines which means in basically owns all major internet pathways (which can easily transmit phone calls as well)), you do the math.
Two, T-Mobile is very big in the UK and some other non US territories, AT could profit from the familiarity by expanding outside the states under the T-Mobile brand.
Ultimately this buyout is nothing more than a Microsoft tactic. While there is great potential in it, unfortunately the potential is for the shareholders, not us. Even if the buyout does bring immense savings to the company, we will never see it, because they aren't savings that Verizon or any other competitors will share. AT&T only needs to stay at around the same pricing as them to be seen as competitive. Never will you see a mega-corporation lower prices just because they can and so nothing good will come of this merger for us.
Gen0 said:
How very naive.
1. At&t already own most of the spectrum across the states, in fact in the big radio spectrum auction of 2008, T-Mobile did'n't win a single auction whereas AT&T spent over $5bn on 300+ licences. This probably means that T-Mobile is actually leasing its bandwidth from another provider in the states (US Cellular).
2. If the buyout is successful, there is no reason to simulate competition between what will essentially be two fronts of the same company. AT&T being the bigger fish (and therefore having economy of scale advantages which mean more profit per customer) will either cripple T-Mobile's cheaper US service, or outright merge it with the main brand, removing all of T-Mobile's advantages in the process, eating it's market share, and phasing out it's price plans in favour of AT&T's more expensive ones.
3. Some people might wonder why you would buy a company just to cripple it, look no further than Microsoft to see the advantages of a market monopoly (and before you say Apple, look how much shares MSFT have in them, they make almost as much money off Apple as Apple do). The real reason AT wants T-mobile is twofold and nothing to do with the obvious....
One, AT&T owns all the spectrum it needs, T-Mobile is a Tier 2 internet provider (owning international network lines which means in basically owns all major internet pathways (which can easily transmit phone calls as well)), you do the math.
Two, T-Mobile is very big in the UK and some other non US territories, AT could profit from the familiarity by expanding outside the states under the T-Mobile brand.
Ultimately this buyout is nothing more than a Microsoft tactic. While there is great potential in it, unfortunately the potential is for the shareholders, not us. Even if the buyout does bring immense savings to the company, we will never see it, because they aren't savings that Verizon or any other competitors will share. AT&T only needs to stay at around the same pricing as them to be seen as competitive. Never will you see a mega-corporation lower prices just because they can and so nothing good will come of this merger for us.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good points, but two things to clear up from this are that AT&T does not plan to retain the T-Mobile brand, pricing, or anything. It's an acquisition, not a merger, in very technical terms. The other thing is that AT&T is only gaining the US branch of T-Mobile, not anything overseas. The rest of the brand will still be retained by Deutsche Telecom. Therefore, AT&T would not be able to use the T-Mobile brand name anywhere outside the US. It wouldn't be a good market strategy for them to do so anyhow.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-31/u-s-files-antitrust-complaint-to-block-proposed-at-t-t-mobile-merger.html
Really hope that this anti-trust deal is upheld.
http://www.todaysiphone.com/2011/08/attt-mobile-merger-blocked-by-us-government/
Good
Sent from my SPH-D700 using xda premium
Justice Department Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block AT&T's Acquisition of T-Mobile Official Press Release.
Transaction Would Reduce Competition in Mobile Wireless Telecommunications Services, Resulting in Higher Prices, Poorer Quality Services, Fewer Choices and Fewer Innovative Products for Millions of American Consumers
the Justice Department said:
WASHINGTON - The Department of Justice today filed a civil antitrust lawsuit to block AT&T Inc.'s proposed acquisition of T-Mobile USA Inc.
The department said that the proposed $39 billion transaction would substantially lessen competition for mobile wireless telecommunications services across the United States, resulting in higher prices, poorer quality services, fewer choices and fewer innovative products for the millions of American consumers who rely on mobile wireless services in their everyday lives.
The department's lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks to prevent AT&T from acquiring T-Mobile from Deutsche Telekom AG.
"The combination of AT&T and T-Mobile would result in tens of millions of consumers all across the United States facing higher prices, fewer choices and lower quality products for mobile wireless services," said Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole. "Consumers across the country, including those in rural areas and those with lower incomes, benefit from competition among the nation's wireless carriers, particularly the four remaining national carriers. This lawsuit seeks to ensure that everyone can continue to receive the benefits of that competition."
"T-Mobile has been an important source of competition among the national carriers, including through innovation and quality enhancements such as the roll-out of the first nationwide high-speed data network," said Sharis A. Pozen, Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. "Unless this merger is blocked, competition and innovation will be reduced, and consumers will suffer."
Mobile wireless telecommunications services play a critical role in the way Americans live and work, with more than 300 million feature phones, smart phones, data cards, tablets and other mobile wireless devices in service today. Four nationwide providers of these services - AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint and Verizon - account for more than 90 percent of mobile wireless connections. The proposed acquisition would combine two of those four, eliminating from the market T-Mobile, a firm that historically has been a value provider, offering particularly aggressive pricing.
According to the complaint, AT&T and T-Mobile compete head to head nationwide, including in 97 of the nation's largest 100 cellular marketing areas. They also compete nationwide to attract business and government customers. AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile would eliminate a company that has been a disruptive force through low pricing and innovation by competing aggressively in the mobile wireless telecommunications services marketplace.
The complaint cites a T-Mobile document in which T-Mobile explains that it has been responsible for a number of significant "firsts" in the U.S. mobile wireless industry, including the first handset using the Android operating system, Blackberry wireless email, the Sidekick, national Wi-Fi "hotspot" access, and a variety of unlimited service plans. T-Mobile was also the first company to roll out a nationwide high-speed data network based on advanced HSPA+ (High-Speed Packet Access) technology. The complaint states that by January 2011, an AT&T employee was observing that "[T-Mobile] was first to have HSPA+ devices in their portfolio...we added them in reaction to potential loss of speed claims."
The complaint details other ways that AT&T felt competitive pressure from T-Mobile. The complaint quotes T-Mobile documents describing the company's important role in the market:
• T-Mobile sees itself as "the No. 1 value challenger of the established big guys in the market and as well positioned in a consolidated 4-player national market"; and
• T-Mobile's strategy is to "attack incumbents and find innovative ways to overcome scale disadvantages. [T-Mobile] will be faster, more agile, and scrappy, with diligence on decisions and costs both big and small. Our approach to market will not be conventional, and we will push to the boundaries where possible. . . . [T-Mobile] will champion the customer and break down industry barriers with innovations. . . ."
The complaint also states that regional providers face significant competitive limitations, largely stemming from their lack of national networks, and are therefore limited in their ability to compete with the four national carriers. And, the department said that any potential entry from a new mobile wireless telecommunications services provider would be unable to offset the transaction's anticompetitive effects because it would be difficult, time-consuming and expensive, requiring spectrum licenses and the construction of a network.
The department said that it gave serious consideration to the efficiencies that the merging parties claim would result from the transaction. The department concluded AT&T had not demonstrated that the proposed transaction promised any efficiencies that would be sufficient to outweigh the transaction's substantial adverse impact on competition and consumers. Moreover, the department said that AT&T could obtain substantially the same network enhancements that it claims will come from the transaction if it simply invested in its own network without eliminating a close competitor.
AT&T is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Dallas. AT&T is one of the world's largest providers of communications services, and is the second largest mobile wireless telecommunications services provider in the United States as measured by subscribers. It serves approximately 98.6 million connections to wireless devices. In 2010, AT&T earned mobile wireless telecommunications services revenues of $53.5 billion, and its total revenues were in excess of $124 billion.
T-Mobile, is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Bellevue, Wash. T-Mobile is the fourth-largest mobile wireless telecommunications services provider in the United States as measured by subscribers, and serves approximately 33.6 million wireless connections to wireless devices. In 2010, T-Mobile earned mobile wireless telecommunications services revenues of $18.7 billion. T-Mobile is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom AG.
Deutsche Telekom AG is a German corporation headquartered in Bonn, Germany. It is the largest telecommunications operator in Europe with wireline and wireless interests in numerous countries and total annual revenues in 2010 of 62.4 billion euros.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
GOOD
sent from my uncyanogen modded epic 4g. with the key skips.
Very good!
More competition.
Orrrr sprint to buy tmobile lol
Sent from my SPH-D700
ac16313 said:
Very good!
More competition.
Orrrr sprint to buy tmobile lol
Sent from my SPH-D700
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sprint may end up buying T-Mobile now. I'm interested in how it goes.
P.S. Sprint's stock did well today due to this news.
Imagine a world with only AT&T...
Finally, the government does something I actually approve of.
Sent from the future.
Overstew said:
Sprint may end up buying T-Mobile now. I'm interested in how it goes.
P.S. Sprint's stock did well today due to this news.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am too. Only if we could speed up the process though
Sent from my SPH-D700
Overstew said:
P.S. Sprint's stock did well today due to this news.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Saw that, but it had a run down over the last couple of weeks.
News like this could really spark a rally if its upheld, though.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
doesn't sprint lose money every year? just more slowely? how are they going to buy anything.
austin420 said:
i think apple should buy tmobile so they can give iphone users a true end to end experience. tmo could exclusively sell iphones, leave all the good android handsets to the other carriers. if all the big networks(ie att and vzw) saw a mass exodus of customers to go to a service provided by apple, prices would prolly go down across the board.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
since they canned the other thread, ill post this here too.
austin420 said:
since they canned the other thread, ill post this here too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Possibly, but what would happen to the T-Mobile users who would like an Android phone?
get a quad band gsm android phone and use your tmo sim card. the same thing a lot of people do already.
Overstew said:
Sprint may end up buying T-Mobile now. I'm interested in how it goes.
P.S. Sprint's stock did well today due to this news.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Doubt it. Sprint lacks the money and much of its lobbying against the merger could be used against a Sprint-TMobile merger.
And then they have incompatible networks. Big headache.
Sprint can benefit from TMobile now bleeding even more subscribers due to this debacle and their stagnant strategic decisionmaking while awaiting the merger (ie no iPhone and LTE).
With no LTE development and a spectrum crunch (that ATT and Verizon also have), TMobile may now have to pursue a deal piggyback off of Clearwire; not sure what this means if Clear ends up be acquired by Sprint.
Jayavarman said:
Doubt it. Sprint lacks the money and much of its lobbying against the merger could be used against a Sprint-TMobile merger.
And then they have incompatible networks. Big headache.
Sprint can benefit from TMobile now bleeding even more subscribers due to this debacle and their stagnant strategic decisionmaking while awaiting the merger (ie no iPhone and LTE).
With no LTE development and a spectrum crunch (that ATT and Verizon also have), TMobile may now have to pursue a deal piggyback off of Clearwire; not sure what this means if Clear ends up be acquired by Sprint.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With more spectrally efficient technologies, the crunch will be alleviated, at least a little bit. LTE has a 5bit/hz spectral efficiency and can be deployed in channel lengths of as little as 1.4mhz. Speed = Spectral Efficiency * bandwidth. So, with the 120mhz of available bandwidth clearwire has, Sprint can run 5 users at 120mbps per tower or 10 users at 60mbps.
With the 800mhz band sprint can run 10 users at 7mbps or 7 users at 10mbps.
I don't know how much spectrum sprint has of 1900 but it is significant. It is, after all, Sprint's current bread and butter spectrum (their whole cdma network).
With the minimum sized 1.4mhz chunks in the 800mhz/2500mhz bands and sufficient backhaul, Sprint can support 95 users per tower running at a full 7mbps.
Bye bye 200kbps pseudo-3G!
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
Actually, this could be bad for Sprint. If T-Mobile gets bought by AT&T, several of their users will leave to Sprint. Also, right now, Sprint and T-Mobile are the main carriers that aren't crazy expensive, if T-Mobile gets expensive, Sprint will be the only one and that makes them stand out and get more customers.
vzw comes out as "not against" the deal. says if the gov. plans on blocking this, it needs to come up with a plan to address spectrum issues.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110921-710723.html
Ok, so here's the deal. US subscribers are in a pickle as far as unlimited data plans are concerned with tethering. Our plans suck (comparatively).
Some of it has to do with wording of contracts by carriers. Some of it has to do with the entitlement we feel when we purchased our respective unlimited data plans. Either way, we all feel hurt by this. As consumers, we want it our way. We want our unlimited data plans to cover our 2GB months to our 200GB months. We don't want to be told about limits on plans labeled and sold as unlimited.
Here's where you come in. How would you change the terms of the agreement as an AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, or other carrier's customer if you were in charge? Keep in mind that you may have limited network resources, funds, or staff to carry out the extreme plans. You still need to generate income for your investors. What would you do to make your customers happy as well as the investors? Is it possible? Is there any sort of reform that is possible in our wireless industry?
Ban contracts all-together. The bundling of phones with network vastly distorts both markets; phones are no longer truly competing on price (e.g. apple's strong position with the iPhone allows them to dictate high carrier subsidies, whose costs must be paid off by effectively taxing everyone else on the network) while carriers are instead competing on phones (rather than the quality of their service).
On the other hand, without subsidies (which essentially hide the costs for the average person who doesn't think it through), manufacturers would have to actually worry about choosing a price low enough to be attractive. This is something that is sorely missing under the current regime.
Not to mention, contracts themselves are effectively anti-competitive, locking in users who don't really know how to properly evaluate their choices. The way to ensure the best service for the user is to allow them to quit at a moment's notice.
Now, I notice you might be thinking more specifically about how the service agreements can be modified, rather than the "contracts" per se. Do the above, and this woud automatically happen. The carriers will have to actually compete for better service (rather than just drawing in people with new shiny phones in order to lock them in). If their service is not up to par with their advertisements, people would just quit the next month. Hence, no more random throttling of plans, etc.
thebobp said:
Ban contracts all-together. The bundling of phones with network vastly distorts both markets; phones are no longer truly competing on price (e.g. apple's strong position with the iPhone allows them to dictate high carrier subsidies, whose costs must be paid off by effectively taxing everyone else on the network) while carriers are instead competing on phones (rather than the quality of their service).
On the other hand, without subsidies (which essentially hide the costs for the average person who doesn't think it through), manufacturers would have to actually worry about choosing a price low enough to be attractive. This is something that is sorely missing under the current regime.
Not to mention, contracts themselves are effectively anti-competitive, locking in users who don't really know how to properly evaluate their choices. The way to ensure the best service for the user is to allow them to quit at a moment's notice.
Now, I notice you might be thinking more specifically about how the service agreements can be modified, rather than the "contracts" per se. Do the above, and this woud automatically happen. The carriers will actually have to compete for better service, rather than just ensure that people are locked in longer than they can think about. If their service is not up to par with their advertisements, people would quit the next month. No more throttling plans with nothing the users can say about it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand your position, but I have doubts that this would be possible to implement in our market. T-Mobile's CMO made a statement about device subsidies contorting what the devices actually cost. T-Mobile actually has a line of Value plans that are kind of on par with what you're thinking about. The rate plans are considerably cheaper than the ones with a device subsidy. The real problem is convincing the other carriers to follow suit.
See, by doing this, it put investors at risk. It's all a money making game. If an idea isn't profitable, then it generally never sees the light of day. What about a sales model similar to what T-Mobile is offering? Could you see a way to make this model profitable to both carriers and consumers alike?
I think it should be handled like the european networks handle their service agreements. You sign up for service when you buy a phone, and you pay full retail price for the phone. Then you pay a relatively lower price for service. Instead of paying say, 59.99 for a phone that retails for 399.99 and then paying 100$ give or take a little each month, you pay full price for the phone, and then get your bill for 50ish a month. Which one sounds better?
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
leo321 said:
I think it should be handled like the european networks handle their service agreements. You sign up for service when you buy a phone, and you pay full retail price for the phone. Then you pay a relatively lower price for service. Instead of paying say, 59.99 for a phone that retails for 399.99 and then paying 100$ give or take a little each month, you pay full price for the phone, and then get your bill for 50ish a month. Which one sounds better?
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree that this would benefit us more as consumers, but we would need to come up with a marketable solution to the current situation that would be agreeable to the carriers as well.
cajunflavoredbob said:
If an idea isn't profitable, then it generally never sees the light of day.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This.
Blaming carrier greed is easy but really doesn't solve anything. Carriers want to make more money and contracts make them more money - I can't fault them for that.
I don't see the US market becoming like Europe's. Although T-Mobile USA is trying to change things, I can think of two things in the way:
-Americans are too stupid to save money~~ Everyone thinks short term savings, hence the persistence of contracts.
-Carrier incompatibility~~ Verizon and Sprint are CDMA. T-Mobile and AT&T run on (mostly) different 3G bands. Buy a phone for full retail and you're probably going to be stuck with one carrier anyway.
luftrofl said:
This.
Blaming carrier greed is easy but really doesn't solve anything. Carriers want to make more money and contracts make them more money - I can't fault them for that.
I don't see the US market becoming like Europe's. Although T-Mobile USA is trying to change things, I can think of two things in the way:
-Americans are too stupid to save money~~ Everyone thinks short term savings, hence the persistence of contracts.
-Carrier incompatibility~~ Verizon and Sprint are CDMA. T-Mobile and AT&T run on (mostly) different 3G bands. Buy a phone for full retail and you're probably going to be stuck with one carrier anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The incompatibility is changing this year, at least with AT&T and T-Mobile. T-Mobile is currently refarming their spectrum to rollout a network on the 1900MHz PCS spectrum. This will be used for their HSPA/+ network, while the existing 1700MHz network will be used for LTE. This move makes their network inter-operable with AT&T devices.
Other than that, I agree with your points. I don't feel that T-Mobile is going to make contracts as we know them go away. I admire the bold move, but I doubt it will ripple the waters much. That being said, I'm hoping we can come together and brainstorm a bit to think of a way to benefit carriers and customers alike. Our market NEEDS to change.
Pentaband unlocked handsets for everybody! Then you can choose whatever retarded WCDMA bands you like!
A list of things I would do:
1) Bring back the unlimited data plans, but only for LTE. (bandwith limits 3g unlimited plans)
2) Have them start rolling out LTE v10 or LTE advaned right now.
3) Voice over LTE.
4) Unlimited voice and text added to a data plan like this:
Plan1) Unlimited voice and text+2gb of data for $
plan2) Unlimited voice and text+5gb of data for $$
plan3) Unlimited voice and text+10GB of data for $$$
plan4) Unlimited voice and text+Unlimited data for $$$$ (LTE only)
They are just ex and I hope the pricing is better than that, but I am trying to be real here.
And verizon needs to fix this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDxJoGv3FLA&feature=player_embedded
4ktvs said:
A list of things I would do:
1) Bring back the unlimited data plans, but only for LTE. (bandwith limits 3g unlimited plans)
2) Have them start rolling out LTE v10 or LTE advaned right now.
3) Voice over LTE.
4) Unlimited voice and text added to a data plan like this:
Plan1) Unlimited voice and text+2gb of data for $
plan2) Unlimited voice and text+5gb of data for $$
plan3) Unlimited voice and text+10GB of data for $$$
plan4) Unlimited voice and text+Unlimited data for $$$$ (LTE only)
They are just ex and I hope the pricing is better than that, but I am trying to be real here.
And verizon needs to fix this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDxJoGv3FLA&feature=player_embedded
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This isn't really a plan. It's more of a wish list. I was hoping that some of the people around here might actually have better ideas of how to do things than the carriers. This isn't a wish list thread. I intended it more as a brainstorming thread.
Well, before anything I want to happen will even be possible, we'd have to see real net neutrality laws in this country...
I would like to see wireless carriers charge for internet access the same way that most ISPs charge. You pay for speed and have unlimited data. Say I have an LTE device. I can pay $50 for unlimited data at 10 Mbps or $100 for 20 Mbps. This makes much more sense to me.
Also, carriers need to be dump pipes. That's just how it has to be. I know they all fear that and will do everything in their power to stop it but I think it's inevitable.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
cajunflavoredbob said:
This isn't really a plan. It's more of a wish list. I was hoping that some of the people around here might actually have better ideas of how to do things than the carriers. This isn't a wish list thread. I intended it more as a brainstorming thread.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
#2 was more of a wish, but the rest of it is not. Let me try to put it in a better way:
1) give 4G LTE users a higher cap/unlimited data, becuase there is more bandwith. They could charge a bit more for the new Data plans, but over all save $ for the buyers. In turn, this would likely help the push for LTE and kill 2g and 3g sooner, so that the bandwith can be used for 4G.
2) Voice over LTE( 3 will be why)
3) When Voice over LTE is done, then make voice/text/data all one plan, Like:
1) 2GB for $60. ( Voice and text would use data)
2) 5GB for $80.
3) 10GB for $100.
4) 20GB/unlimited for $120.
Any way I am not a CEO and I don't have the # for everything, so this "plan" of mine may not work/be good, but I tryed.
I have both AT&T and verizon unlimited data plans and don't like the low bar they have set of 2-5gb plans, but really most don't use more than about 5GB. Now I bet they would if they used a crap load of voice at 50mb per 60 min. ( If you used 900min per bill then you would use about 750mb or about bit less 1/2 of the 2GB plan and then a few e-mails, some text and bam over the limit.)
Mobile voice is surely not 50Mb for 60 minutes. That'd be close to 128kbps MP3 quality, which our phones certainly are not!
I read that on verizon, that voice would be about 45mb per hour. I don't know all the #, but think it may work. They may up the voice quality to make this work and I think it's one of there goals with voice over LTE.
4ktvs said:
#2 was more of a wish, but the rest of it is not. Let me try to put it in a better way:
1) give 4G LTE users a higher cap/unlimited data, becuase there is more bandwith. They could charge a bit more for the new Data plans, but over all save $ for the buyers. In turn, this would likely help the push for LTE and kill 2g and 3g sooner, so that the bandwith can be used for 4G.
2) Voice over LTE( 3 will be why)
3) When Voice over LTE is done, then make voice/text/data all one plan, Like:
1) 2GB for $60. ( Voice and text would use data)
2) 5GB for $80.
3) 10GB for $100.
4) 20GB/unlimited for $120.
Any way I am not a CEO and I don't have the # for everything, so this "plan" of mine may not work/be good, but I tryed.
I have both AT&T and verizon unlimited data plans and don't like the low bar they have set of 2-5gb plans, but really most don't use more than about 5GB. Now I bet they would if they used a crap load of voice at 50mb per 60 min. ( If you used 900min per bill then you would use about 750mb or about bit less 1/2 of the 2GB plan and then a few e-mails, some text and bam over the limit.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's actually a much better way of saying it. It's not a bad idea. Going all data would seem to be the way to go for the future. That problem is going to be getting carriers to realize this and make adjustments accordingly. They keep saying that they don't have enough bandwidth to service everyone, but this plan makes exclusive use of data. It requires a nationwide "4G" footprint. Verizon is the closest to this right now. T-Mobile is close behind with its HSPA+ rollout. AT&T has a large HSPA+ footprint as well, but it's not any/much faster than their 3G in my testing. We won't even go into Sprint's "4G" services....
I think that Verizon and T-Mobile would be the biggest players in this. T-Mobile currently has the bandwidth and lower customer base to make this a reality. Verizon may still have quite a way to go, though. CDMA technology really needs to hurry up and die already.
In any case, this is any interesting plan, that would indeed be beneficial to both parties. The biggest hurdle is that their are still large parts of the country that do not have high speed wireless access. Within the next three years, I can see this being put into play.
EDIT: Also, GSM networks use the G.729 codec (as far as I recall) for voice calls which compress the call to roughly 6-8Kbps. This makes it about 3.6MB per hour on a normal, non VoIP GSM call. I have no idea what CDMA uses.
4ktvs said:
They are just ex and I hope the pricing is better than that, but I am trying to be real here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
... you're not trying hard enough
Seriously though, that list is unrealistic. "I want more advanced tech and I want it released and working now." is not a useful answer for "How would you change the wireless market?"
As for me, I want American cell networks to be more compatible with other networks - right now AT&T and T-Mobile are the only carriers with anything close to this. Maybe there's hope for this with LTE developments, but I don't know.
If this happens, maybe cheaper postpaid plans will be available - I really like this - it's why I'm on T-Mobile. I wish AT&T would have discounted plans if you're not on contract - it's not like they need to subsidize a phone.
luftrofl said:
... you're not trying hard enough
Seriously though, that list is unrealistic. "I want more advanced tech and I want it released and working now." is not a useful answer for "How would you change the wireless market?"
As for me, I want American cell networks to be more compatible with other networks - right now AT&T and T-Mobile are the only carriers with anything close to this. Maybe there's hope for this with LTE developments, but I don't know.
If this happens, maybe cheaper postpaid plans will be available - I really like this - it's why I'm on T-Mobile. I wish AT&T would have discounted plans if you're not on contract - it's not like they need to subsidize a phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're answer is similar to the one you jest about. How would such a move benefit the carriers? If it is not beneficial to them, it will not happen. What would be their motivation to make their networks or devices interoperable? Customer loyalty, or doing it to make customers happy isn't a reason, unfortunately. Generally, there needs to be financial motivation to make changes to the market.
cajunflavoredbob said:
EDIT: Also, GSM networks use the G.729 codec (as far as I recall) for voice calls which compress the call to roughly 6-8Kbps. This makes it about 3.6MB per hour on a normal, non VoIP GSM call. I have no idea what CDMA uses.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you, I couldn't remember the exact bitrate but I knew it was really very low.
Adaptive Multi-Rate Speech (AMR) is the codec used by WCDMA voice and it tops out at 12kbps.
Now I know were I got 45mb/hour. I read it in the mobile broadband part of a verizon mag.
It list Voice call(VoIP) as 45MB/hour over 4G LTE.