good summary pic. when will you start supporting the merger, and how much did you cost?
I would have a high sell out price myself, but i don't run a website or anything, so i won't get any offers.
how does one get hired as a corporate shill, i wonder?
have they ever approached this website with an offer? i'd be curious how much they have hinted at before being told to pack sand.
Dumb Even someone in kindergarten could figure out that taking away competition brings nobody closer to so-called universal or near universal broadband. Verizon will get there all by itself whether the merger occurs or not. Besides what difference does it make if T-Mobile plus AT&T equals 100 percent coverage or AT&T (after gobbling up T-Mobile) on its own equals 100 percent. 100 is 100 no matter how many companies are involved. There is absolutely no logic to AT&T's position and it gives me a headache thinking about the shills who support it.
Re: Dumb But we are dealing with pre-K minds in CONgress.
Re: Dumb pro is the opposite of con, thus congress is the opposite of progress.
said by mtech:
But we are dealing with pre-K minds in CONgress.
said by t3ln3t :I like that.
pro is the opposite of con, thus congress is the opposite of progress.
said by mtech:
But we are dealing with pre-K minds in CONgress.
Re: What AT&T means is universal higher prices!
said by Mr Matt:Because it's not.
contractual prices both carriers charge are basically the same.
The base plans might appear to be the same but when you factor in the differences between them (rollover for AT&T, friends and family for Verizon, mobile to mobile for each carrier) the actual per-minute cost you wind up paying will vary depending on your needs and usage.
Nor do they charge the same for data since the last time I checked Verizon still has unlimited plans for smartphones and AT&T doesn't.
payoffs take away our rights to at&t So att can payoff everyone in usa. Well bottom line is they sold off their rights to company that bite you later. HOPE ALL THE SELL OUT GROUPS ENJOY THE PRICE THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR SERVICE LATER. THANKS for how you treat your follow poor and middle class to not being able to pay att service later. Hope you calls drops like the do now forever guys.
I really have been shocked at the dishonestly that AT&T has used . The Latino support media blitz was a real eye opener . The headlines that went to multiple sources never really said anything about supporting the merger . It had catch phrases like it " recognizes " the positive this or that . This merger would hurt Latinos maybe more than any other group . A GSM standard seems like it would benefit them more than any other group . I wonder what the fringe latino groups got just for letting their name be used ? The other blitz I noticed was how it is able to roll out the " most advanced mobile broadband experience" to this city or that city due to this merger . Thus the merger is good for you . I never really noticed the lengths a company would go though to deceive from the CEO down. Just really evil stuff . Everyone will pay more if this merger goes through indeed . Just really shocked at how this merger has grabbed my attention . It almost has a good vs evil feel.
Re: I really have been shocked at the dishonestly
said by Prissy:Hello! That's why AT&T is a.k.a. "The Death Star". Just look at their logo
It almost has a good vs evil feel.
Hope this helps...
Don't you people get it?? AT&T is right! If they control all the pipes they can spoon feed us via walled gardens/portals.
It will be a more open internet, because it'll be their version of it
Welcome to the future!
| |cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
Fort Wayne, IN
Re: You Know
said by pnh102:There are many rea$on$ why any group, minority or not, allow corporation$ to $uggest talking point$ to them. Merger or no merger, The Hispanic Institute and The Latino Coalition aren't really directly affected. $o if they pro$titute them$elve$ as corporate mouthpiece$, they really don't hurt their member$hip on way or another.
Why do members of minority groups allow for other groups, which may or may not hold their individual interests at heart, to speak for them?
| |said by pnh102:They get to do it, because in the US it has been legal forever to sell your support to anyone you want to. I am sure they all see it as getting a piece of the corporate pie any way they can. Can't get good jobs in these companies like AT&T & Verizon, so take a payoff instead. At least they get something.
Why do members of minority groups allow for other groups, which may or may not hold their individual interests at heart, to speak for them? Why do these organizations get to be allowed to "state" with what "everyone" in that particular minority group is "supposed" to be thinking?
·Comcast Digital ..
At the end of the day, GREEN is the only color that counts AT&T has the cash to buy comments from consumer groups, bloggers and so-called minority groups. When you think it is a black and white issue, simply follow the money trail and you will see it is really a GREEN issue. The question that AT&T asks is how much green can we get?
A citizen of The United States of Amnesia. How quickly we forget.
Wow, SOMEONE doesn't like AT&T As a T-Mobile customer I'm not thrilled about the takeover, but could this writing be any more biased and inciting?
makes me sick It makes me sick to send AT&T my hard earned money every month. Their dishonesty is enough for me to switch carriers. When VZW deploys LTE in my market I'm gone.
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.
Re: oooookay 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 .
Re: oooookay 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.
Re: oooookay 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 ?
Re: oooookay 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).
Re: oooookay 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.
| 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 . |
| 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.
AT&T/T-Mobile Merger If this merger is approved, I'll will be either dropping service completely or, dare I say it, switch to Sprint or Cricket.
What ignorance There's an old name that keeps ringing in my head ..."Ma Bell" seems like we're taking several steps backwards. I'm all for competition. With competition, we the users can benefit from cheaper services. If we only had one company offering telecom do you really think rates would be so affordable? with T-mobile gone, the only other major carriers up for grabs will be Sprint and US cellular. We keep going on this path all we will have is VZ and ATT, their argument, we can't compete because they are bigger...common when does this stop. In the meantime most people forget that the way of the merger means less jobs. When did we start preaching comptetition isn't good?
| |DaveDudeNo Fear
maybe 100 % consoliation ? Have ATT merge with Verizon and Sprint, and all the others. Of course data access prices would drop ? - sarc !
Shallow Astroturfing (The So-called Precusor Blog) I just tried six times to post the following message on the Precursor Blog by Scott Cleland (www.precusorblog.com):
"I used to live in the UAE which had a single state run phone company (Etisilat). When the World Trade Organization required competition, they created a second primarily state owned phone company (Du) and nothing changed. ATT and Verizon may compete, but they generally march in lock step thereby denying customer choice. They are essentially our version of the UAE companies mentioned above. Canada has three large providers (Bell, Rogers, and Telus), but Canada found that there was inadequate competition and pried the doors open for new competitors Wind and Public who are shaking things up. A duopoly is very much the same as a monopoly. While your position is well argued, I just don't see it."
As the poster of the original article correctly noted, the precusor blog appears to be deliberately rigged to stop posting while maintaining the appearance that posting is permitted. Everytime I tried to post to the blog, Mr. Cleland's blog said I was not filling out the captcha correctly or that I wasn't hearing the audio captcha correctly.
I hope people who are searching for articles to get a sense of public opinion about the proposed ATT and TMobile merger do not regard Mr. Cleland's views is representatives or accepted because no one has "chosen" to put a post up on his "precusor blog."
Re: Shallow Astroturfing (The So-called Precusor Blog) You mean the Google is the most evil company in America blog?
Scott doesn't care about the truth. Just that his checks from the telecomunication companies keeps rolling in.
Re: Shallow Astroturfing (The So-called Precusor Blog) The frightening thing is he continues to be called before Congress as an objective and independent sector analyst.