| |
verizon12345
Anon
2011-Dec-1 2:51 pm
Karl although I love your commentary..You always write one-sided stories.
In your dramas all telcos are evil and everyone else is working for the better good of the people.
The FCC report was actually just a draft and full of conjecture. I'm not sure why the FCC even published a "draft," since it was not a full report nor was it even voted upon.
There are always 2 sides to each story. Both the FCC and AT&T stories have holes but only one side is pointed out.
I have no confidence in the FCC They are politically motivated, just like the phone companies and are more interested in getting re-elected then serving the public good.
T-Mobile has been losing customers for over 2 years. Tell me how they are such a competitive disruptive force in our industry?
DT has no plans to pour the billions and billions in capital required to build out a nationwide LTE network for T-Mobile much less fill in all their GPRS only areas with HSPA +. How is a company like this in any good shape to operate competitively on its own?
The FCC themselves have stated the "dire needs," of spectrum needed by wireless telcos like AT&T yet in the same draft they claim they have "more than enough." Total discrepancy here.
Again all the "what if's," and "what not's," are all conjecture on anyone's part. You can hate AT&T and everything associated with them but the statements made by the FCC don't add up either and people will continue to believe only what they want to regardless of merit or facts. |
|
 HarleyYacLee
Premium Member
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ
1 recommendation |
Here Here!! lets end all regulation and government meddling!!!
The corporations will take care of us all!! We can trust them!!
::not:: |
|
1 recommendation |
to verizon12345
said by verizon12345 :You always write one-sided stories.
In your dramas all telcos are evil and everyone else is working for the better good of the people.
The FCC report was actually just a draft and full of conjecture. I'm not sure why the FCC even published a "draft," since it was not a full report nor was it even voted upon.
There are always 2 sides to each story. Both the FCC and AT&T stories have holes but only one side is pointed out.
I have no confidence in the FCC They are politically motivated, just like the phone companies and are more interested in getting re-elected then serving the public good.
T-Mobile has been losing customers for over 2 years. Tell me how they are such a competitive disruptive force in our industry?
DT has no plans to pour the billions and billions in capital required to build out a nationwide LTE network for T-Mobile much less fill in all their GPRS only areas with HSPA +. How is a company like this in any good shape to operate competitively on its own?
The FCC themselves have stated the "dire needs," of spectrum needed by wireless telcos like AT&T yet in the same draft they claim they have "more than enough." Total discrepancy here.
Again all the "what if's," and "what not's," are all conjecture on anyone's part. You can hate AT&T and everything associated with them but the statements made by the FCC don't add up either and people will continue to believe only what they want to regardless of merit or facts.
The FCC report just reasserts what we (consumers) have experienced for years and decades.
- 1. That at&t are thieves.
- 2. That at&t will destroy US jobs after and before the merger.
- 3. That at&t are parasites seeking special treatment from the government.
- 4. That at&t lied about the merger and continue to lie.
- 5. That at&t is too lazy and short sighted to build a competitive wireless network by themselves.
|
|
| |
to verizon12345
Karl does a great job.
This is one of the few times that the FCC was 100% right.
Tmobile, has been cash positive for over the past 2 years. Having a 4th provider will drive prices down and keep verizon and att in check.
Tmobile can easily have a 4G path, they could use the same multi mode antenna's Sprint will and start converting there PCS, and AWS over to LTE over time.
Easy.
Also spectrum wise ATT in most of the largest markets use less than 50% of there spectrum. ATT is like a warehouse.
Also, with providers like LS,Dish,Clearwire there is NO need for ATT or Tmobile to say they need specturm so so bad.
But all in all you are clearly an ATT employee . |
|
ncbill
Premium Member
join:2007-01-23
Winston Salem, NC |
to verizon12345
3Q2011 results for T-Mobile (connections):
33,711,000 total 126,000 net adds |
|
|
 fuziwuziNot born yesterday
Premium Member
join:2005-07-01
Palm Springs, CA |
to verizon12345
The only response worthwhile to your diatribe is: bullsh**. |
|
| |
to verizon12345
Any disclosures you'd like to make about who you work for? |
|
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT  ·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68
|
to verizon12345
Yup, pretty much. What really annoys me is that they are trying to block this pro-consumer acquisition, and yet they won't take pro-consumer actions against the wireless carriers, like with overages, international roaming, unlocking devices, contracts, etc, etc. The FCC should use this opportunity to say YES, BUT to AT&T, with the BUT being a series of pro-consumer protections around overages, contracts, phone locking, international roaming, tethering, etc, etc. |
|
 jslikThat just happened
Premium Member
join:2006-03-17 |
to verizon12345
said by verizon12345 :I have no confidence in the FCC They are politically motivated, just like the phone companies and are more interested in getting re-elected then serving the public good. Uh, the FCC is not elected. They're appointed, and with many FCC folks going on to work in the industry, how is this critical report going to help their future job prospects? |
|
1 recommendation |
to BiggA
said by BiggA:Yup, pretty much. What really annoys me is that they are trying to block this pro-consumer acquisition...
SBC "pro-consumer?" HAHAHAHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Pull the other one. It's got bells on. That's pretty funny. Jim |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC |
to verizon12345
I always read Karl's long articles as editorials. I can usually count on getting a good opposing view editorial in the comments.
Your username is kind of funny, aren't verizon and charter competitors? |
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN |
to rlharris02
said by rlharris02:But all in all you are clearly an ATT employee .
The only thing that's clear is he is able to see that there are shades of grey in this world and often there's more than one side to an argument. Unlike many (most?) posters in this forum. And the author of this editorial. |
|
| |
to jseymour
The old AT&T that was regulated by government was indeed procpnsumer. They had bell labs That invented and earned good reputation. Today AT&T is simply sbc with AT&T name on it and they are not as same as the old AT&T before divesture by doj in 1986. |
|
| |
said by chgo_man99:The old AT&T that was regulated by government was indeed procpnsumer. They had bell labs That invented and earned good reputation. No question. Western Electric, too. Used to make telephones that i swear would probably have survived a nuclear holocaust. (I still have one or two--one even with a dial, I think--around.) said by chgo_man99:Today AT&T is simply sbc with AT&T name on it and they are not as same as the old AT&T before divesture by doj in 1986.
Funny thing is: I think they figured that, by renaming themselves, they'd escape their past. I guess it never occurred to them that if they kept behaving like SBC, it wouldn't matter what they named themselves, people would still dislike them. I remember when I heard SBC had obtained AT&T. We had AT&T local and long distance, and AT&T T1s. I wrote our TelCom consultant "I got a bad feeling about this." Sure enough: They have met my worst expectations. Things started going south w/in about a year after SBC obtained AT&T, and have gone basically downhill ever since. Jim |
|
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT |
to jseymour
Overall, they aren't that great, unless you compare them to Verizon, but this move is pro-consumer, as it will create a efficiency on a much larger scale and disrupt the duopoly that currently rules wireless with an iron fist. |
|
 tiger72SexaT duorP
Premium Member
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
1 recommendation |
to verizon12345
said by verizon12345 :You always write one-sided stories. He very much does. In your dramas all telcos are evil and everyone else is working for the better good of the people. agreed. The FCC report was actually just a draft and full of conjecture. I'm not sure why the FCC even published a "draft," since it was not a full report nor was it even voted upon. You're echoeing what ATT said. My question: Why does it matter? There are always 2 sides to each story. Both the FCC and AT&T stories have holes but only one side is pointed out. ATT is extremely effective at marketing their point. They've been repeating their marketing statements for a year now. They have refused to back up their statements with any real data. The onus is on them to prove that they need T-Mobile. I have no confidence in the FCC They are politically motivated, just like the phone companies and are more interested in getting re-elected then serving the public good. They aren't elected... They're appointed. T-Mobile has been losing customers for over 2 years. Tell me how they are such a competitive disruptive force in our industry? Because they continue to make money. By ATT's own admission, they would never have deployed anything about 7.2mbps HSDPA were it not for T-Mobile deploying 21mbps, and then 42mbps HSPA+. By deploying faster HSPA+, ATT benefitted ALL of its customers because it quadrupled their capacity (ie the same towers could provide data 4x faster to the same customers). Again, the only reason you're seeing faster data speeds on ATT now than what you saw 2 years ago is because of T-Mobile's successful HSPA+ deployments that raised expectations for what a '3g' network is capable of. This was Spring of this year:  DT has no plans to pour the billions and billions in capital required to build out a nationwide LTE network for T-Mobile much less fill in all their GPRS only areas with HSPA +. How is a company like this in any good shape to operate competitively on its own? I don't even know where to start with this stupid remark. 1. While this whole buy-out business was going on, T-Mobile has continued to see investment. See: 42mbps HSPA+ deployments, 49.95 Unlimited Everything Plan introduced, etc. etc. etc. 2. GPRS areas will eventually be upgraded to HSPA+ - this was already layed out in T-Mobile's business plan. In fact, upgrading those areas to HSPA+ is deemed very important to T-Mobile, as they want to re-farm their 1900mhz network for LTE/further HSPA+ deployment. See:  The FCC themselves have stated the "dire needs," of spectrum needed by wireless telcos like AT&T yet in the same draft they claim they have "more than enough." Total discrepancy here. Context. Learn it. For FUTURE growth, a LOT more spectrum is necessary. Eventually the desire is that Cellular internet will compete directly with landline internet (cable/dsl/fiber). But there simply isn't enough spectrum to dedicate right now to making this possible nationwide. So when the FCC speaks to CONGRESS, they inform them that for the FUTURE, there isn't enough spectrum based upon current growth models. But as far as ATT is concerned, they're just sitting on spectrum that they're already supposed to be using. And while small players like T-Mobile, Leap, and Metro are fighting for spectrum ATT is letting it sit unallocated for years. Put differently: If other carriers (say, T-Mobile) had the spectrum that ATT is simply sitting on, they'd be able to have an LTE plan without having to refarm their old networks. ATT is trying to have its cake, and eat it too. They're sitting on spectrum so that their competitors can't use it. Then they're telling the world that they should gobble up their competitors because obviously there isn't enough spectrum to go around. Again all the "what if's," and "what not's," are all conjecture on anyone's part. You can hate AT&T and everything associated with them but the statements made by the FCC don't add up either and people will continue to believe only what they want to regardless of merit or facts.
The statements add up. You just need to read up more on the technology at play. |
|
fuziwuziNot born yesterday
Premium Member
join:2005-07-01
Palm Springs, CA Hitron EN2251
Nest H2D
|
to BiggA
said by BiggA:...but this move is pro-consumer, as it will create a efficiency on a much larger scale...
No. |
|
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT |
BiggA
Premium Member
2011-Dec-2 12:05 am
Yes it is. |
|
| |
to verizon12345
Why did AT&T back out of the hearing if they had all the evidence they needed to easily disprove these 'conjectures'?
You can't not go to trial, argue you could've easily won, and then subsequently blame the other side for over-reach; you've had your ample chance. You're only loosing credibility now. |
|
| |
to BiggA
What a joke, higher prices, less choices.
Pro Consumer, what a JOKE
Efficencies for a company merger means job losses as well as the venders will be hurt as well. |
|
fuziwuziNot born yesterday
Premium Member
join:2005-07-01
Palm Springs, CA Hitron EN2251
Nest H2D
|
to BiggA
No, it is not. Though it is your favorite tactic, repeating a lie over and over does not magically make it so. |
|
| |
said by fuziwuzi:Though it is your favorite tactic, repeating a lie over and over does not magically make it so.
That's pretty funny, coming from a guy who's got a tagline that says "Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1". How often have you repeated that lie? |
|
| |
viperlmw
Premium Member
2011-Dec-2 11:52 am
said by footballdude:said by fuziwuzi:Though it is your favorite tactic, repeating a lie over and over does not magically make it so.
That's pretty funny, coming from a guy who's got a tagline that says "Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1". How often have you repeated that lie? That's not a lie. |
|
| |
Agreed. Any movement that the basis is "ME ME ME ME ME; anyone else - meh, who cares" is destructive.
Although I will agree with them that we need to reduce gov spending in areas. |
|
| |
to verizon12345
said by verizon12345 :T-Mobile has been losing customers for over 2 years. Tell me how they are such a competitive disruptive force in our industry? Cheapest post-paid plan: Verizon/AT&T 450 minute plan: $39.99/mo + fees T-Mobile 500 minute plan: $39.99/mo + fees Cheapest Unlimited talk/text plan: Verizon/AT&T: $90/mo T-Mobile: $60/mo Cheaper rate plans available if you bring your own hardware: AT&T/Verizon: No T-Mobile: Yes Seems relatively disruptive to me.... said by verizon12345 :DT has no plans to pour the billions and billions in capital required to build out a nationwide LTE network for T-Mobile much less fill in all their GPRS only areas with HSPA +. How is a company like this in any good shape to operate competitively on its own? I have no idea what DT/T-Mobile are going to do with regards to 4G data networks. I do know they are a very competitive option for people who only need voice. I do know if you live in one of their upgraded areas they are a very competitive option for people who use data. said by verizon12345 :The FCC themselves have stated the "dire needs," of spectrum needed by wireless telcos like AT&T yet in the same draft they claim they have "more than enough." Total discrepancy here. Then why didn't AT&T just try to buy some of that spectrum that T-Mobile supposedly isn't going to build out? Could have done that for a lot less than $39,000,000,000. Of course that wouldn't have eliminated the sole remaining nationwide carrier that doesn't match AT&T and Verizon's pricing, would it? |
|
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT ·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68
|
BiggA
Premium Member
2011-Dec-2 5:49 pm
Actually, Virgin and Boost are the most price-disruptive, and they are run by Sprint. However, Boost, Virgin, T-Mobile, Metro, etc don't compete with AT&T and Verizon. They compete with each other. T-Mobile could be half the price and it wouldn't matter, those of us who actually need a phone that works more than 5 feet off of the freeway will always go with one of the big players (or USCC who has world-class coverage in their areas and a roaming agreement with big red).
Allowing the merger throws this duopoly out of balance and could be better for the consumer. At minimum, it doesn't hurt, as T-Mobile can't compete with 4G networks anyways, and there isn't enough room for that many players. Other new players are popping up like Metro and Leap, so they can serve the bottom-scrapers. |
|
fuziwuziNot born yesterday
Premium Member
join:2005-07-01
Palm Springs, CA |
fuziwuzi
Premium Member
2011-Dec-2 11:11 pm
Pure bullsh*t. Not one of your statements are factual, just your already-proven biased conjecture you pull out of your a**. Nobody believes your crap. |
|
 jlibuszowski
Premium Member
join:2005-10-25
Hoffman Estates, IL |
to etaadmin
said by etaadmin:
- 1. That at&t are thieves.
- 2. That at&t will destroy US jobs after and before the merger.
- 3. That at&t are parasites seeking special treatment from the government.
- 4. That at&t lied about the merger and continue to lie.
- 5. That at&t is too lazy and short sighted to build a competitive wireless network by themselves.
+1 I worked for AT&T, and while I have nothing against them, and still to this day do promote and sell their products. I will say that their labor practices HR department is a JOKE. They have a history of settlements and lawsuits against violating employee's labor rights. They use cry babies like Mr. Jim Cicconi to peddle BS for them, which even AT&T's own company executive management have reputedly publically come out and contradict! Well, if they invested in their network, trained their employee's properly, actually knew what they where doing, then maybe.. But they simply don't! Worse yet the company is LAZY and the vast amount of their employee's I worked with where LAZY and could not read or write. Even simple legal matters related to how services are installed, the people they put in charge, where illiterate, and just wasted everyone's time.. Heck I got a call from one of their Datacenter group a couple years ago –trying to pitch services to me and on behalf of the clients I represent. And… The guy had no clue and he was in charge of selling services. He claimed they where a SAS70 datacenter. Except, I really could care less about it, since its a check list and it stops there, especially since AT&T looses SSN# and their own management records constantly. So clearly they have no clue on how to protect PII data. Especially, since just about anyone can walk into their facilities without even the cursory glance. Steal a laptop, pop their limited laptop security in 5 seconds and have a treasure trove of financial info due to their ‘lack of STRONG encryption and proper security protocol training and enforcement. But getting back to the story, their own rep- couldnt even tell me what SAS70 was after I was on the phone for 30 minutes I mean damn, at least use Google to pull up a definition… Just WoW! References: » www.networkworld.com/com ··· de/28453» www.internetnews.com/bus ··· /3629236. |
|
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT |
to fuziwuzi
I don't care if people choose to believe reality or not... that's their problem. |
|
| |
to verizon12345
All telco and cable co's ARE evil. |
|
·
