dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
985
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT
·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68

BiggA

Premium Member

oooookay

AT&T... really? Smart people can already figure out this is a good thing, as long as the FCC puts some conditions on it.... why the need for astroturf? It just makes you look bad, AT&T.

It doesn't really affect different groups particularly differently, if anything the affects are different urban vs. suburban/rural, but urban T-Mobile customers have the most to gain, although AT&T customers have a lot to gain too.
Prissy8
join:2011-04-07
Marietta, GA

Prissy8

Member

I'm an urban T-Mo customer & the only thing I feel that will be gained is the size of my bill . I have what I want , a GSM phone with stellar rates & great service . A T-Mo customer will not come out ahead . The astroturf & AT&T's refusal to guarantee our rates while continually bring up that rates in theory should be dropping is just validation that in the end we will be getting hamered in this deal .
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT
·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68

BiggA

Premium Member

Why do you think you are entitled to cut-rate prices when you will gain the amazing coverage and superior building penetration of AT&T Mobility's nationwide network?

Rates per se won't drop, but rates relative to the speed, coverage, and quality of service have dropped significantly and will continue to drop in the future.

AT&T shouldn't rate guarantee Magenta SIMs just like they didn't for Blue SIMs. If you want a new phone, you should have to get an Orange SIM and an Orange plan. However, I would also say that AT&T should be required to unlock your Magenta devices so that they can work on Orange as a backup phone or whatever. Even 3G devices will work fine on EDGE post-AWS 3G.

Also, Orange plans have Rollover, A-List (which T-Mobile ironically invented and then killed with MyFaves), and AnyMobile, while Magenta plans don't.

I think they should clean out all the legacy as quickly as possible. And if that means losing our 850 minute legacy Orange plan too, that's fine. AnyMobile would probably even it out with the current 700 minute plan anyways.
Prissy8
join:2011-04-07
Marietta, GA

Prissy8

Member

I think I'm entitled to keep my plan . I have fine coverage & speed right now . Why do YOU and AT&T feel entitled to buy the company I do business with ? Entitled ? If AT&T didn't feel so entitled they wouldn't have to buy out the only national GSM competition . They would work on their infrastructure & have real customer service not telemarketers . But they do feel entitled . Thats why they are sending another wave of lobbyists to Washington right now as I type . I guess we will see if anti trust still exists . What makes you sure this merger will benefit you ?
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT
·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68

BiggA

Premium Member

You're entitled to keep it for the remainder of your contract OR to be let out of your contract. I've had great customer service experiences at Corporate stores, better than the rest of the sleazeballs out there who sell cell phones.

I get more coverage. I get more efficiency. I get more spectrum. I get more capacity. I get more cell sites. I get more backhaul. I get a larger selection of phones. I get better competition since it throws the current duopoly off balance.

AT&T already has the best coverage and the fastest data of the two carriers, this is just going to make them even more awesome. Now Verizon will be in the position AT&T was in a few years back with a newer, faster technology, but more limited coverage, except that AT&T has built out blazing-fast 3G to virtually everywhere anyone goes (even though it is still less than probably 40% of the network land area wise).
thecp
join:2004-07-15
Sacramento, CA

thecp

Member

Keep gorging on that corporate kool-aid. How does the elimination of competition bring better competition? AT&T may do some nice things to keep the FCC off their backs but once the deal is given the PASS stamp the real raping will begin.

More capacity, more spectrum? Faster data rates? So you can hit the draconian 2GB limit faster? Coverage is debatable, since you have done nothing to back up your claim that AT&T+T-mo will actually have any significant increase in coverage, since we don't know how much of it actually overlaps.
Prissy8
join:2011-04-07
Marietta, GA

Prissy8 to BiggA

Member

to BiggA
It doesn't benefit AT&T or T-Mobile customers to have only one GSM provider . You seem to be suggesting that by having less competition you are getting more . I suspect unfortunately that this merger will go through . I more than suspect AT&T won't come out of this looking good . AT&T's unpopularity after this takeover might do more to " throw the current duopoly off balance " than anything else . 10's of millions of TMO customers are livid about this merger & there is growing sentiment that this falls under anti-trust .
severach
join:2002-09-12
Jackson, MI

severach to BiggA

Member

to BiggA
BiggA has a Verizon phone. He just wants the deal to go through so your service can go down in flames. Now that I think about it, so do I.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT
·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68

BiggA

Premium Member

It brings better competition two ways:

1. Most people need a carrier with a true nationwide network, and low-band spectrum. There are two of those. This throws the duopoly, which is near deadlock now, and has been for years, completely off balance.

2. Sprint and T-Mobile are scraping at too small of a market to both be financially sustainable and build out a world-class 4G network. Now Sprint will be able to sweep up the lower-cost less coverage market while AT&T and Verizon duke it out at the top.

More spectrum and more tower both equal more capacity. This is fundamental and basic to wireless services.

The coverage boosts are all in urban areas, where they don't have the same tower sites. They will end up with a lot more tower sites. It probably won't help on street, but in-building will increase a lot. Out in more suburban/rural areas, it won't help AT&T very much, although T-Mobile has been more aggressive in the last couple of years in building new towers, and does have a number of sites that AT&T hasn't gotten on yet.

What you people don't get is that NO ONE CARES about the whole GSM vs. CDMA thing. 95% of people don't KNOW THE DIFFERENCE, and even then, most people buy a phone from their carrier, AND there are VERY FEW phones that currently have both AWS and NAM. I know that all of my phones are NAM only, so they are effectively locked to AT&T in the US.

Correction: 10's of T-Mobile customers are livid. There's somehow still a lot of people who don't know this is going on, and after that, the majority either support it or don't really care.

This is NOT anti-trust. HOWEVER, I hope that the FCC puts some strict rules on ALL of T-Mobile's spectrum (which would basically carry over to AT&T's since the networks and spectrum will be combined and managed as one) about overage fees, bill monitoring, allowing SIM cards in any device and allowing tethering, open application access on platforms that support it (Android), and the like. This would be a win for everyone involved, and usher in even better mobile services.