Comments on news posted 2011-03-21 13:46:32: After surprising everybody with their Sunday announcement that they'd be buying T-Mobile for $39 billion, AT&T today began the difficult process of trying to convince the public and regulators that eliminating one of the four major carriers -- while .. ..
Sign all of the petitions you want, but the merger will go through because of the $ that at&t is pumping into the regulators. It's just reality.
T-Mobile customers: Don't like how things are heading? Vote with your wallet ($), just move your service/phone number to Sprint. They're offering $125 port-in credit right now (until 4/16/11). If you have plenty of $$$ and don't mind paying more, V might even be a option for you.
Its going to happen no matter how many signatures you get. Just look at centurylink and qwest? look at comcast and NBC? look at verizon wireless and alltel wireless? only 2 big players I see in wireless is going to be ATT and Verizon.
ATT wireless already bought out: cingular Centennial Wireless now T-Mobile.
if anything happens big would be verizon wireless buys out sprint then verizon would be the biggest wireless carrier.
Cingular was a joint venture between SBC and Bellsouth. Cingular bought AT&T wireless in 2004 not the other way around. SBC bought AT&T Corp. in Oct. 2005 and adopted the AT&T branding. After the acquisition of Bellsouth in Dec. 2006 it was anounced the Cingular would start using the AT&T wireless name.
As long as you are in a major city, sure TMo may have the most 'robust' nationwide network.
quote:AT&T offered up a few other arguments for the deal, claiming consumers will see lower prices and better city coverage
If AT&T keeps all the T-Mobile towers in major cities as well as their own, then AT&T coverage will improve markedly in the major cities. -- Record your speedtest.net results in DSLReports SpeedWave »www.speedtest.net/wave/afe201cb84d45c88
They sucked when they were Cingular.... They sucked after the sale and they became AT&T..... They willl suck that much more when this goes through. Instead of fixing things...Oh, I don't know, like customer service and service that actually keeps a phone call connected, they just buy stuff up to try and hide the fact that they suck!....How does anyone actually pay that company for anything? It still baffles me that they are still in business.
T-Mobile also hasn't built up an area only to offload it to an inferior sucker alternate carrier who struggles to provide even standard services at a competitive price.
Well, two things I'd say to that:
1) Verizon didn't "build up" any rural areas, they inherited most of them from GTE.
2) I don't know anything about Fairpoint but why does everybody here beat on Frontier as some sort of "inferior" carrier? I've lived in and around Frontier's footprint for most of my life and they've made considerable investments in my area to bring DSL to rural areas. I've seen Frontier deploying remote terminals all over the place around these parts. I've yet to see Verizon do the same. Verizon doesn't even bother deploying RTs to reach the suburban areas that are out of range, never mind the rural ones. There are whole neighborhoods in Binghamton that can't get DSL. I can't say the same thing for any of the areas served by Frontier around these parts.
Karl picked up my thoughts on AT&T spectrum slightly differently than I meant to imply. I wrote
"Does AT&T need the T-Mobile spectrum? (no - 70-90% of the AT&T spectrum capacity is currently unused.)"
not 70-90% of the spectrum. I including in that figure a great deal of spectrum that is currently "used" with older technologies but carries far less than it would with current technologies already being deployed by AT&T, Verizon and everyone else.
I'm working from a comparison of what the spectrum could carry with current technology (LTE, HSUPA+) compared with the capacity in use. That's 1.5-2.5 megabits/megahertz, depending on whether you're measuring average versus edge of cellsite, fixed antennae, etc.
That's 120-300 megabits in most markets. Let's call it 200 megabits average.
Currently, the heavy majority of AT&T cellsites are still served by T-1's carrying a total of less than 12 megabits, often far less. It's typically used for "up to 7.2 megabit" data and lots of voice. Some percentage - surprising high, but not 70-90%, is currently unused.(?20-60% on average as a wild guess, but that's unprovable without internal AT&T data.)
Much of the spectrum is currently used for voice, using older technologies that are far less efficient than today's. Glen Campbell of Merrill Lynch estimates that by refarming that spectrum and using it efficiently (if only for voice) you double the carrying capacity. Similar is true for all the spectrum being used for 2G and even 3G data. They only use 10-?50% of the capacity of the spectrum using today's technologies.
Carriers around the world have begun this "re-farming" for more efficiency, including UK and Canada. Everyone has it in their plans because it's more efficient and hence cheaper. Sprint intends to do that with the Nextel spectrum and AT&T has discussed similar. It takes time, because you have to change out all the handsets, but using existing spectrum more efficiently saves so much money the carriers are doing it almost universally.
Much spectrum lies purely fallow, about enough to carry us without upping capex about 5 years (FCC figure, badly calculated) or 10+ years (Ivan Seidenberg of Verizon and most technical people as opposed to lobbyists.) Most of the rest is used by older 2G and 3G tech (both voice and data) and has 2-4x the capacity with today's technology.
Hence, T (and almost every one else) is using only 10-30% of the capacity of their spectrum. They know this and are rapidly upgrading backhaul (2010-2011 primary problem) and radios. They are discussing plans to switch users from 2G voice - still what's in 3G and 4G handsets - to 4G voice over IP/LTE over the next few years.
AT&T's announced 2011 backhaul upgrades - from 20% GigE fiber or 100 meg microwave to 70% - will yield 500% more capacity for data this year alone. »fastnetnews.com/a-wireless-cloud···-in-2011 They are using it to go from 7.2 meg to 20 and 40 meg HSUPA+ and LTE.
A 300% improvement in bandwidth implies 75% of capacity was unused.
So they get a pass on investing in rural America while Verizon gets ripped for allegedly failing to do the same?
They don't get a complete pass, but T-Mobile is a fraction of the size of Verizon. It's not unreasonable to expect major cities to get service first, smaller cities, major towns, smaller towns, then rural. T-mobile has a large amount to grow even in major towns, let alone smaller towns and then rural. Verizon in comparison already has a much larger footprint and while metropolitan areas may get updated towers or upgrades, to continue growing their footprint Verizon is much closer to spreading out in more rural areas.
1) Verizon didn't "build up" any rural areas, they inherited most of them from GTE.
So most of Verizon's current rural coverage is just from GTE? So they haven't replaced, upgraded, or added additional towers throughout their coverage area? It's just been pretty stagnant for the previous 11 years?
2) I don't know anything about Fairpoint but why does everybody here beat on Frontier as some sort of "inferior" carrier?
It's not just Frontier. Fairpoint had trouble meeting DSL availability that was a condition of the merger approval. They also had various E911 snafus. Both Hawaii Telecom and Fairpoint filed for bankruptcy within a few years.
Frontier recently, after telling regulators that they weren't going to cut services, that they could provide the same level of service that Verizon had, and that they were committed to remaining competitive jacked up cable rates 46% and install fees to $500 for FiOS customers. They also want to transition people from FiOS TV to DirecTV. Frontier also usually ranks at the bottom of the Good/Bad/Ugly list based on reviews here at DSLReports. They also, until relatively recently, had a 5GB cap in their AUP.
If lying to regulators, not providing basic required services, poor customer support, raising rates and fees by an obscene amount, and generally poor reviews don't qualify for inferior carrier status, I'm not quite sure what does.
I've seen Frontier deploying remote terminals all over the place around these parts. I've yet to see Verizon do the same. Verizon doesn't even bother deploying RTs to reach the suburban areas that are out of range, never mind the rural ones. There are whole neighborhoods in Binghamton that can't get DSL. I can't say the same thing for any of the areas served by Frontier around these parts.
Coming from AT&T it is the funniest thing I've heard in weeks.
The merger will go through cause AT&T owns enough Congressmen and key people in the regulatory agencies. There will be "conditions" that are supposed to protect consumers but the conditions will be so weak or ignored as to be worthless.
It will definitely mean higher prices and more fees.
Anytime you hear a wireless provider or cable provider or internet provider talk about "lower prices" you know you are hearing lies.
ATT recently swallowed Centennial Wireless. The service and coverage has gone to crap just at the same time they "got all the towers switched to AT&T 3G" imagine that! -- There are 10 types of people. Those who can read Binary and those who cannot.