Tell me more x
, there is a new speed test available. Give it a try, leave feedback!
dslreports logo
spacer
1
spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer

view:
topics flat nest 
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 .. ..

prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · next


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 edit
reply to openbox9

Re: AT&T-Mobile

said by openbox9:

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/afe201cb8 ··· 84d45c88

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to cdru

Re: So glad I just left for Verizon

said by cdru:

T-Mobile has always been a predominantly highway and major city provider since it was VoiceStream.

So they get a pass on investing in rural America while Verizon gets ripped for allegedly failing to do the same?

said by cdru:

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.

daveberstein

join:2002-07-15
New York, NY

Dave Burstein Important Clarification

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.

gorehound

join:2009-06-19
Portland, ME
reply to Gbcue

Re: AT&T-Mobile

Time for Ma Bell and I will be very surprised if our government stands up for the people of the USA.

VerizonCynic

join:2006-10-25
Lakewood, CA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to Sammer

Re: FCC's Last Chance

This is just a big middle finger to the FCC. Att knows it will win this. It pays a penalty to T Mobile if ATT cannot buy off regulators. Me thinks they will.

»www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-2 ··· bid.html

Show me a merger this big where consumers truly benefited


DataDoc
My avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.
Premium
join:2000-05-14
Martinsburg, WV

Isn't this exactly why they broke up Ma Bell?

From 1 to 7 to 3 to 1 again?
--
Socialism is theft.


cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7
reply to Crookshanks

Re: So glad I just left for Verizon

said by Crookshanks:

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.

said by Crookshanks:

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.



Alcohol
Premium
join:2003-05-26
Climax, MI
kudos:4
reply to WeSRT4

Re: Sprint

Sprint will gain hundreds of thousands of new customers when they release the EVO 3D this summer.
--
I found the key to success but somebody changed the lock.

neftv

join:2000-10-01
Broomall, PA

New commercial

I guess now that AT&T guy will be piggy backing the pretty girl in the dress when Verizon starts to make their commercials.


backfeed
is giving feedback

join:2002-12-16
Peru, IN
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to old_wiz_60

Re: Lower prices? HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

said by old_wiz_60:

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.

egilbe

join:2011-03-07
reply to daveberstein

Re: Dave Burstein Important Clarification

So it's not a bandwidth issue the reason AT&T is going to data caps? It's a money grab.


Alcohol
Premium
join:2003-05-26
Climax, MI
kudos:4
reply to Zulu3

Re: $39 Billion

They have a lot of cash in hand. They can improve the infrastructure but why do that they can charge overage fees.
--
I found the key to success but somebody changed the lock.


Alcohol
Premium
join:2003-05-26
Climax, MI
kudos:4
reply to Mr Matt

Re: Will their service turn to crap during the transition?

Simple answer: Yes.


mech1164
I'll Be Back

join:2001-11-19
Lodi, NJ
reply to LostInWoods

Re: So glad I just left for Verizon

said by LostInWoods:

The question is whether the FTC still has a spine.

One word NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

VerizonCynic

join:2006-10-25
Lakewood, CA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Do something other than DSLR comment

FCC comment page
»fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/di ··· ?z=4iujo

or email it ecfs@fcc.gov

"dept of Justice Antitrust Division"

dont forget to cc your senators (as long as they are Dems) Otherwise forget it


drew
Radiant
Premium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
kudos:6

Thrilled

I am thrilled to see that T-Mobile customers. will finally receive the robust service offered by AT&T
--
flickr | Of faith, power and glory

sparc

join:2006-05-06

t-mobile usa is not a threat to anything

"the deal is largely about reducing competition and preventing T-Mobile from evolving into a serious threat.

T-mobile USA is never going to be a serious threat. They have way too many gaps in their coverage. There's not much sign they'll ever move to LTE at this rate while milking 3G. It's been a financial drag on it's owner DT who desperately wants to get rid of it. DT knows that T-mobile usa's value will continue to deteriorate in the coming years as they don't know how to manage the company.

I'm very mixed on the merger as a T-mobile customer. I'm not happy that it's going forward, but the better overall coverage with ATT will probably end up swaying me in its' direction. If they can retain inexpensive t-mobile plans, then i'll probably stay for the long haul. I just hope the government gets off their butt and puts enough conditions on the merger to keep t-mobile customers from getting totally screwed in the long run.

The most important thing here is that at least T-mobile customers didn't get screwed into merging with Sprint. After the Nextel merger, what sane person would want to join a company like this. It's all a matter of which devil that T-mobile customers want to join. I'd rather be with a company like ATT that has a chance at pulling off the merger.


SrsBsns

join:2001-08-30
Oklahoma City, OK

Goodbye video without WIFI

I guess AT&T didn't like the fact T-Mobile could do video conferencing without WIFI. Say so long to that unless you pay an extra fee just to use it and it will count toward your data cap.

sparc

join:2006-05-06
reply to posthaste

Re: Just Sayin'

at best you can call this a duopoly between AT&T and Verizon

All the minor players like Sprint end up going bankrupt and their assets sold off to some minor players.

corinthos

join:2007-10-09

:(

It actually makes me sick to my stomach that this is happening. I wish it would get shot down but I have little faith in that.

Most likely they will give us lower prices. It will be in the form of low sized data plans with plenty of overage, charging for speeds or something shady.

I'm keeping Tmobile until it goes through then going to a different carrier the day the switch it made.


bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto

join:2001-02-10
USA

1 recommendation

Jay Leno said it best on last night's show:

"Now they're going to corner the market on dropped calls!"


ryder9

join:2003-01-09
here
reply to old_wiz_60

Re: Lower prices? HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

2 words........ Bill Daley


rolande
Certifiable
Premium,Mod
join:2002-05-24
Dallas, TX
kudos:6
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·ViaTalk

T-Mobile's exit strategy

Personally, I think that T-Mobile has been struggling internally for some time now to figure out if it was worth staying in the US market. They have not enjoyed high margin cash infusion that would allow them to pay for more rapid buildouts and platform upgrades. I think they were in a rock and a hard place financially and did not see a good forecast on the horizon given that situation. I think this whole deal was orchestrated for them to exit the market without looking like the bad guy to their customers and put a good chunk of cash in their pockets at the same time. Better to sell your assets while they are still worth something, rather than let the service implode on itself over the coming years.

So, we may all cry foul at at&t but I think that they are just taking advantage of a situation that was going to happen one way or another. I don't believe there was any hostile takeover going on here. T-Mobile offered them a gift, wrapped in a bright pink bow. (I do think it is quite ironic given the mud slinging ad campaigns of late) But, you can't blame at&t. They are only doing what they are supposed to do for their shareholders. Organic growth is not always enough to satisfy your investors.

Ultimately, the Federal Government could step in and decide that this deal is very bad for consumers and they could block it. This alternative outcome might actually be worse in the long run. T-Mobile may then be forced to attempt a spin-off or sell at a fire sale. Either way, the resulting entity would likely have nowhere near the financial leverage to sustain any real growth or competition against the incumbents. So, in the end, the net effect might be worse for the market than an at&t buyout. Having 2 mediocre competitors will do nothing to pull prices downward for the other 2.

Either way, I think that Verizon and Sprint stand to gain a large number of ex-T-Mobile subscribers. You can count me on that list.
--
Scott, CCIE #14618 Routing & Switching
»rolande.wordpress.com/

tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

lower prices?

you lie!


jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
reply to rradina

Re: If my plan changes

said by rradina:

Verizon will now have to buy Sprint. Perhaps US Cellular?

USCell is my provider and I get exactly what I want: nationwide voice for $40, great rural coverage here in northern New England (they own nearly all the towers in central & western Maine and northern NH), no silly misleading fees, and THEY ANSWER THEIR PHONE (!) The CS staff does weird things like say "hello" and the beginning of the call and "goodbye" at the end and apparently feel disinclined to auto-spew canned marketing paragraphs. Surreal in an disorientingly human sort of way. Most customers seem to adjust though. I appreciate not losing a year off my lifespan by calling a TelCo.

So, if USCell merges with Verizon then VZ's customer service, billing and price plans will become similarly stellar. That's how mergers usually work: the best of both companies floats to the top in choreographed synergy.


jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
reply to Gbcue

Re: Its going happen no matter how many signatures you get

THAT is histerical! Thank you. Once again the court jesters distill brainiac shit storms into useful truth. Prescient that this, what, two?,three?,more? year old clip acquires value as time goes by. Curious which episode it was.


Alcohol
Premium
join:2003-05-26
Climax, MI
kudos:4
reply to drew

Re: Thrilled

You just made Gbcue See Profile shit his pants.

rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
reply to jap

Re: If my plan changes

said by jap:

said by rradina:

Verizon will now have to buy Sprint. Perhaps US Cellular?

So, if USCell merges with Verizon then VZ's customer service, billing and price plans will become similarly stellar. That's how mergers usually work: the best of both companies floats to the top in choreographed synergy.

I don't mean to sound like a jerk but there's really no other way to say this.... are you SERIOUS?

If Verizon was interested in US Cellular, they wouldn't "merge" with them. They would buy them. Typically whichever fish swallows is the organization that wins, even if the swallowed organization is better-managed.

Folks are very fearful of T-Mobile "merging" with AT&T and having the "magic" that only AT&T knows, infect their company. They fear it will lead to the end of what they perceive as value and quality in the service they receive from T-Mobile. AT&T's strategy has been exclusive devices locked in to overpriced plans, no 3G service outside major population centers and crappy "five bar" service.

Service here used to be decent but over the past few years it's degraded with ever-increasing smart device traffic. There are areas where with five bars, if you can start a call it takes 15 to 20 seconds (or more) for it to start ringing. And don't even think about data. When I leave work I try to check the traffic on the iPhone built-in map. I have two routes home. If clear, one is ~15 minutes and the other is ~25 minutes. The decision point is about five minutes from my office when I get on the interstate. I often cannot get the map to update before I have to make the decision. I leave anywhere from 2pm to 7pm but often around 4pm. It doesn't matter when I leave, if I don't get updated traffic on my corporate WiFi network before I leave the building, I just don't get it despite a five bar 3G signal.

I have repeatedly used the AT&T iPhone app to report problems but it's been this way for well over a year.

To be fair, there are also areas where 3-bar service is fantastic. Calls go through immediately and data speed can top 6Mbps down and 1.5+mbps up using Ookla's speed test app.

After years of "3G coverage" map fights with Verizon it's incredible that they have NOT spread high speed to rural areas. Despite being embarrassed by Verizon's map, not much has changed. They have added some smaller population centers here and there but there's no holistic upgrade of all their towers to handle 3G. I think their lock on the Apple devices has kept them going. I hope most iPhone users leave for Verizon. Perhaps AT&T's network will get better with less load! I'd leave but I'm stuck because AT&T is our corporate wireless partner.

Of course if they are allowed to swallow T-Mobile, AT&T promises 4G coverage everywhere. Who can trust statements like this and what enforceable penalty will be engaged if they don't do it? Will the FCC vote to censure AT&T the way Congress air spanks its members when they misbehave?


Alcohol
Premium
join:2003-05-26
Climax, MI
kudos:4
reply to LostInWoods

Re: So glad I just left for Verizon

said by LostInWoods:

My guess is that you wouldn't have that choice -- Verizon would swallow up Sprint in response.

The real question to me is whether they try to do so as a tactic to get the ATT/TMO deal scotched. This would be similar to Coca Cola buying Dr Pepper in response to Pepsi buying 7-Up in the mid 1980's. The FTC killed both deals as anti-competitive. This is similar, with a helluva lot more importance on the US economy than sugar-water. The question is whether the FTC still has a spine.

Verizon said they don't want Sprint.

Also, you should look up how much AT&T has paid (bribed) the government in the last 10 years.
--
I found the key to success but somebody changed the lock.


davegtestr

join:2001-11-07
Bothell, WA
reply to sparc

Re: t-mobile usa is not a threat to anything

As a Sprint customer, formerly AT&T iPhone 3G, I am glad too that Sprint did not buy the weak T-Mobile predominately GSM/3G GSM network. Our network is fast and will migrate to LTE it looks like in the next 2.5 years.