Topic 'Re: Karl although I love your commentary..' in forum '' - dslreports.com

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:16:58 EDT

BiggA posted : Out of touch with reality? You're wrong, but I'd like to hear why you think that anyways.

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Sun, 11 Dec 2011 09:50:11 EDT

fuziwuzi posted : Thank you for confirming yet again just how out of touch with reality you are.
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Sat, 10 Dec 2011 13:12:09 EDT

BiggA posted : Try traveling somewhere that isn't dominated by asphalt and concrete, and you'll pretty quickly see that T-Mobile's coverage is crap.

AT&T is the best value in the business, period. They are cheaper than their one competitor (a tier II, super-regional, or tier III carrier doesn't compete with tier I coverage), they offer more flexibility, and they have cheaper plans, rollover, etc. The only big downside is phones, their competitor has better Android phones. I'm perfectly happy with my iPhone though, on the iPhone's home network, and the only network that offers speeds up to 3x faster on the iPhone.

Consumer Reports has their good points, but anything electronic is not one of them. They have continuously botched TV, computer, and electronics reviews, used metrics that make no sense, and done ridiculous things like not given the iPhone 4 an editor's choice because it had an antenna issue that couldn't be reproduced in normal use because the phone had to be taken out of it's case to make the problem occur! Granted, I wouldn't have given a good review to the iPhone until iOS5, BUT their reasoning was completely flawed. I've also found over the years that their reviews often don't even align with the models on the market, or totally skip important products in a category.

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Fri, 09 Dec 2011 11:39:06 EDT

fuziwuzi posted : Buy what works for you. I get EXCELLENT coverage with T-Mobile everywhere I travel. EVERYWHERE. I travel to every major metro area of the US and have had no problems and I've never dropped down to GPRS speed. And since I have to pay for my phone MYSELF, I appreciate that I get unlimited anytime calling, unlimited text, and unlimited data (5GB unthrottled) for $60/month. Why on Earth would I want to pay any more for service that is more complicated and doesn't offer me any advantage?

Evidently, the vast majority of Consumer Reports readers who were polled feel the same as me. AT&T is a very poor value. They are way down at the bottom in EVERY metro area of the country. AT&T is one of the most reviled companies on the planet, and for very good reason. And I should know, I retired from them. And yes, I draw a pension check from AT&T and I could get a retiree discount, but I still would never use their service.
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Fri, 09 Dec 2011 11:29:13 EDT

BiggA posted : Ok, so my friend's T-Mo phone can beat mine in a speedtest. But even he admits the coverage sucks, and he would buy an iPhone if he could. I am very happy with AT&T, they are top dog in network and coverage quality, they are cheaper than the other carrier, and their iPhone is 3x as fast as the others.

A 20% pricing difference when they are so different in quality of network and coverage is pretty significant. There's a bunch of MASSIVE coverage holes in CONNECTICUT with T-Mobile. That's PATHETIC. I can't find their 3G vs. 4G vs 2.75G vs. 2G coverage, HOWEVER, I know that they still have areas with GRPS, unlike AT&T, and I'm pretty sure that T-Mobile doesn't have 100% 3G coverage in CT. AT&T does, at 850mhz. Gee, which one is better there?

When I assume liability for my own phone, I will be staying with the best: AT&T. It's not worth giving up my iPhone and the best coverage and network for $15/mo, or 18%. Considering that my cell phone is something I use constantly, having the best coverage is worth the price without question.

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Fri, 09 Dec 2011 10:03:20 EDT

fuziwuzi posted :

said by BiggA:

They are within 20% of the price of each other. Not exactly disruptive. No wonder AT&T gains customers while T-Mobile loses them.

Mostly due to the FUD generated by AT&T. Just look at the latest Consumer Reports issue which rates carriers. In EVERY METRO AREA OF THE US, AT&T is dead last in customer satisfaction, in EVERY CATEGORY. T-Mobile is first in many metro areas. AT&T is rated as a very poor value.

And thank you for confirming you have absolutely no grasp on reality. You think 20% is insignificant? I guess to you, sponging off your mom, it is. But most of us have to support ourselves. Grow up.
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Thu, 08 Dec 2011 17:12:49 EDT

BiggA posted : They are within 20% of the price of each other. Not exactly disruptive. No wonder AT&T gains customers while T-Mobile loses them.

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Thu, 08 Dec 2011 10:50:09 EDT

fuziwuzi posted :

said by BiggA:

Oh god, it's you again. And you still don't know how to do math.

You don't know math nor the truth. You keep saying $100 is less than $60 and that AT&T has the consumer's best interest at heart. Have you ever spoken the truth in your life?
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Tue, 06 Dec 2011 10:28:55 EDT

BiggA posted : Oh god, it's you again. And you still don't know how to do math.

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Tue, 06 Dec 2011 01:41:57 EDT

fuziwuzi posted :

said by BiggA:

In general, T-Mobile has very, very weak coverage compared to AT&T or Verizon, goes to GPRS a lot, and roams a lot.

Proving yet again you really don't know WTF you're talking about. I've told you previously all the places I travel and I have excellent coverage and it is extremely rare that I see anything less than full HSPA+ signal on T-Mobile. Like the previous guy, I not hiking the wilderness, I'm in cities and get city-wide HSPA+ coverage in every metropolitan area I travel. And I pay SIGNIFICANTLY LESS for it than you do. You can bullsh*T all you want about juggling minutes and crap, but I have UNLIMITED ANYTIME CALLING, unlimited text messaging, and unlimited (5GB full-speed) data for $59/month. And I don't have to wonder if I have enough rollover minutes for a phone call or whether it is a landline or not or what time of day it is. I can call anybody, anytime and that's how i like it.

But, you seem to spend most of your time regurgitating AT&T propaganda and bullsh*t information that isn't based on any reality other than the crap between your ears. Get a life, dude. You're downright creepy.
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Mon, 05 Dec 2011 10:05:06 EDT

BiggA posted : In general, T-Mobile has very, very weak coverage compared to AT&T or Verizon, goes to GPRS a lot, and roams a lot. AT&T is native more often, and has a 3G footprint that is larger than anyone else's network except Verizon. That 97% number is also based on roaming agreements.

LTE-advanced is already available, the US carriers just aren't using it. Teliasonera has been using it for longer than Verizon has had any regular LTE.

Real 4G is not marketing. Real 4G is real 4G. You can argue that WiMAX is, but there is no argument for HSPA+. It might be fast, but it is evolved 3G. I like HSPA+, I use it on my iPhone every day, but when it comes down to it, it's enhanced 3G. LTE brings new spectrum into the mix for AT&T, as well as lower latency.

Ok, fair enough, Metro isn't really data competitive, but Virgin and Boost sure are.

T-Mobile isn't much cheaper than the big guys. Sure, there are some cheap plans if you bring your own device and barely use any minutes or don't use very much data, but for regular plans that are comparable to Verizon, there isn't that much price difference, and Verizon offers much better coverage.

Also, the customers who want a cheap service are not the ones who are wanting insane speeds are the latest and greatest toys. Those folks want Verizon's 4G LTE network with their nationwide 3G network.

What if you stay somewhere that doesn't have 3G, or even EDGE? T-Mobile still has towers with GPRS, whereas AT&T is at least all either EDGE or HSPA+.

Metro has to use AWS because in the northeast market, they don't own PCS. They have big licenses for LTE, they just haven't really used them yet.

What about going on vacation? T-Mobile is crap anywhere off the beaten path. In northern New England, GSM is rough, but at least AT&T can cobble together halfway decent coverage, as they have towers here and there. T-Mobile doesn't have much of anything.

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Mon, 05 Dec 2011 06:08:41 EDT

tiger72 posted :

said by BiggA:

I am serious about coverage. You can pry my AT&T iPhone out of my cold, dead hands (unless you have a Verizon DROID RAZR or something for me), as I want the thing to work when I'm out in the sticks.

I was north of Boulder, CO (ie in the Rockies) over the summer with some friends. One had a VZW iPhone. The other had an ATT iPhone. I had my T-Mobile phone with me. Just about wherever they had service, I had service on my TMO phone. In some cases, I had service where they did not. In other cases, the VZW phone would have service where the ATT and TMO phones did not. YMMV.
In all cases though, my data speeds were faster than the VZW or the ATT phones.
With regards to coverage, ATT covers 98% of the population. TMO is at 97%. Feel free to eat up all the marketing bullshit you want. I'm not going to pay 2x as much for a 1% bump in places that don't matter to me (Idaho, North Dakota, et al)

Real 4G matters mostly in terms of capacity and scalability, not so much in raw speed. It is also a big deal in marketing, and right now, only Verizon can claim to have wide coverage of true 4G LTE, which they are doing a good job at differentiating from HSPA+ and WiMAX.

"Real 4g" is a marketing term. Science is science. The 3gpp (you know, the standards body which is developing BOTH HSPA+ and LTE) already has literature with regards to the small spectral efficiency bump that the excessive LTE buildout expenditure creates over HSPA+. That's why almost every single network that has HSPA+ is skipping LTE deployment in favor of LTE-Advanced when that's ready. LTE just isn't worth it to most companies that have HSPA+. CDMA networks need LTE to compete. LTE provides little benefit over HSPA+.

1. Metro and Leap still offer a price-competitive alternative, and offer roaming on Sprint. Cricket also is nationwide now, as an MVNO through Sprint, in addition to being facilities-based in some area.

Cool. For voice, that's great. For data, they do not compete at all.

2. Yes, their data networks are pretty pathetic, but so it's T-Mobile and Sprint's native 3G coverage. Admittedly, Sprint and T-Mo are better than Metro and Leap. Metro is also working on EVDO in some areas, although I don't know why they don't put it in all their markets, as if they could get decent data speeds they could really cash in on the smartphone craze. However, looking at competition, T-Mobile has never offered the competition that Sprint does through Boost and Virgin.

This isn't 2008. If you're in or near a city, you have T-Mobile HSPA+. And that HSPA+ is a helluva lot faster than the competition. And that's on their production network that's been live for years. Not an empty network that no one yet uses.

And it's a helluva lot cheaper too.

Once you get outside of the metro areas, things drop back down to EDGE, true. But I find that I don't have much need for anything above EDGE when i'm going 90 down the interstate. My Sprint service is definitely faster on the road, but again, I haven't had much use for 1mbps vs 200kbps on the road.

3. From what I understand, they don't have as many customers as the big boys, and they have fairly dense cell site spacing in the urban markets that they serve to keep good coverage on the PCS and AWS bands, so they are not capacity limited.

Leap and Metro have both already had issues with delivering MMS/SMS in a timely fashion due to their capacity constraints. Not sure what they've done to solve those issues, but the FCC has all of the documentation available. They needed AWS spectrum to simply deploy their 2g CDMA network in some areas. Only Metro has a plan for LTE deployment at this point, and even though were the first to deploy LTE in the USA, they only have it in, what, 2 markets?

Those speed tests are impressive, but the coverage is very limited. T-Mobile is serving a weird niche, as most subscribers who want speed also want coverage, and right now Verizon is top dog in that department, plain and simple. Most people who are looking for cut-rate service are more than happy with Virgin's 1.8mbps (and yes, I've actually speedtested it).

You keep saying "limited", but I'm not sure what you mean by that. I live in a city. I travel to cities. Most families live in cities. Most Americans visit their families in cities. Most Americans travel to cities for business. As I mentioned above, I don't need coverage in Back-Asswards, ID... If you do, good for you though! Feel free to pay more for coverage in places you don't go.

I'd rather pay for coverage in places that I do go: Cities and suburbs.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 23:34:18 EDT

BiggA posted : I am serious about coverage. You can pry my AT&T iPhone out of my cold, dead hands (unless you have a Verizon DROID RAZR or something for me), as I want the thing to work when I'm out in the sticks.

Real 4G matters mostly in terms of capacity and scalability, not so much in raw speed. It is also a big deal in marketing, and right now, only Verizon can claim to have wide coverage of true 4G LTE, which they are doing a good job at differentiating from HSPA+ and WiMAX.

1. Metro and Leap still offer a price-competitive alternative, and offer roaming on Sprint. Cricket also is nationwide now, as an MVNO through Sprint, in addition to being facilities-based in some area.
2. Yes, their data networks are pretty pathetic, but so it's T-Mobile and Sprint's native 3G coverage. Admittedly, Sprint and T-Mo are better than Metro and Leap. Metro is also working on EVDO in some areas, although I don't know why they don't put it in all their markets, as if they could get decent data speeds they could really cash in on the smartphone craze. However, looking at competition, T-Mobile has never offered the competition that Sprint does through Boost and Virgin.
3. From what I understand, they don't have as many customers as the big boys, and they have fairly dense cell site spacing in the urban markets that they serve to keep good coverage on the PCS and AWS bands, so they are not capacity limited.

Those speed tests are impressive, but the coverage is very limited. T-Mobile is serving a weird niche, as most subscribers who want speed also want coverage, and right now Verizon is top dog in that department, plain and simple. Most people who are looking for cut-rate service are more than happy with Virgin's 1.8mbps (and yes, I've actually speedtested it).

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 15:04:31 EDT

tiger72 posted :

said by BiggA:

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).

HAHAHAHAHA

[att=1]

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.

Oh you're pretty funny. You're a great example of why it's impossible to take anyone seriously who thinks that "4g" matters more than actual results.

1. Metro and Leap don't have nationwide spectrum. Period. This already makes them non-viable for a LOT of consumers (myself included).
2. Their data networks are an afterthought - at best. Their 2g networks are slow as molasses (putting even Sprint's to shame). Metro's LTE network lacks coverage, or devices capable of using it.
3. Even the spectrum they have is extremely small. Think 10mhz total in their markets, rather than 40mhz total. It's clear you won't understand the significance of that, but it essentially means that if they fill up their spectrum, they'll see a a lot more dropped calls/texts, or they'll have to raise prices to limit how many people use their network.

According to real world speed tests (and not ATT/VZW marketing), TMO's HSPA+ network competes quite handily with LTE. It blows Clear's WiMax out of the water.

let's see:
[att=2]
[att=3]
[att=4]
[att=5]
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 01:57:37 EDT

WernerSchutz posted : All telco and cable co's ARE evil.

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Sat, 03 Dec 2011 09:45:52 EDT

BiggA posted : I don't care if people choose to believe reality or not... that's their problem.

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Sat, 03 Dec 2011 09:25:26 EDT

jlibuszowski posted :

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 it’s 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- couldn’t 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/community/node/28453

»www.internetnews.com/bus-news/ar···/3629236.

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Fri, 02 Dec 2011 23:11:45 EDT

fuziwuzi posted : 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.
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Fri, 02 Dec 2011 17:49:56 EDT

BiggA posted : 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.

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Fri, 02 Dec 2011 14:10:46 EDT

Crookshanks posted :

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?

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Fri, 02 Dec 2011 13:44:13 EDT

Rambo76098 posted : 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.

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Fri, 02 Dec 2011 11:52:10 EDT

viperlmw posted :

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.

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Fri, 02 Dec 2011 11:20:28 EDT

footballdude posted :

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?

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Fri, 02 Dec 2011 09:56:27 EDT

fuziwuzi posted :

said by BiggA:

Yes it is.

No, it is not. Though it is your favorite tactic, repeating a lie over and over does not magically make it so.
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Fri, 02 Dec 2011 08:22:31 EDT

rlharris02 posted : 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.

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Fri, 02 Dec 2011 05:53:57 EDT

NuShrike posted : 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.

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Fri, 02 Dec 2011 00:05:05 EDT

BiggA posted : Yes it is.

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 23:26:04 EDT

fuziwuzi posted :

said by BiggA:

...but this move is pro-consumer, as it will create a efficiency on a much larger scale...

No.
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 21:12:25 EDT

tiger72 posted :

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:

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.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 20:08:25 EDT

BiggA posted : 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.

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 19:49:47 EDT

jseymour posted :

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

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 18:22:59 EDT

chgo_man99 posted : 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.

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:58:16 EDT

RJ44 posted :

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.

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:48:45 EDT

axus posted : 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?

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:15:52 EDT

jseymour posted :

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

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:15:18 EDT

jslik posted :

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?
--
If they told you wolverines make good house pets, would you believe them?

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 15:45:24 EDT

BiggA posted : 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.

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 15:19:44 EDT

pegasusx posted : Any disclosures you'd like to make about who you work for?

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 15:16:30 EDT

fuziwuzi posted : The only response worthwhile to your diatribe is: bullsh**.
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 15:13:27 EDT

ncbill posted : 3Q2011 results for T-Mobile (connections):

33,711,000 total 126,000 net adds

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 15:05:31 EDT

rlharris02 posted : 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 .

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 14:59:36 EDT

etaadmin posted :

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.

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 14:58:43 EDT

HarleyYac posted : Here Here!! lets end all regulation and government meddling!!!

The corporations will take care of us all!! We can trust them!!

::not::
--
My opinion on religion and science? Science builds airplanes. Religion flies them into buildings.

Karl although I love your commentary..

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 14:51:05 EDT

anon posted : 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.