Possible T-Mobile-Sprint merger could rival AT&T in subscribers - Page 2

No, no sorry- i think you are wrong here. The iphone is the most revolutionary device since the blackberry, and it is converting people to ATT, despite all the problems with people complaining about coverage. I would be very very surprised if T-Mobile is considering buying Sprint if they do not have something going on to bring out the iphone after they do.

I mean, what- they buy sprint, and the iphone goes to Verizon- WTF would anyone go to T-Sprint after that?

The iphone is a strong enough device to convert people to the apple ecosystem. All the carriers know that. The choice is no longer about what network you want- its about whether you want and can afford the iphone.

Right now the original 3g is at 99$- that's a pretty lower barrier to entry. It's not a far jump to say $49 or even free with contract at that point...

And consider any complaints that go with the iphone have to do with ATT.

No, I think you re wrong to say that the iphone is not changing what is done at these companies. i think these companies are very much waking up to the idea that the device can be more persuasive than the network.

It will. What is happening is that T-Mobile is losing out to both AT&T and Verizon.

While Sprint is actually losing customers, T-Mobile is being hurt significantly as well. When your additions are down by a large amount each quarter, there comes a time when you are losing customers as well. Look at the numbers:

From 2nd quarter 2008 to the first quarter of 2009, down 38%. From first quarter 2009 to 2nd quarter 2009, down 22%. That may sound like the decreases are themselves decreasing, but really, they are accelerating. The first numbers T-Mobile gave here skipped two quarters, while the last one was just one quarter later.

The additions this last quarter are less than half of what they were a years ago, same quarter. That could easily mean that next year, 2nd quarter, T-Mobile could lose customers.

Remember that Sprint was also gaining customers in decreasing numbers before they actually started to lose them. History is repeating itself with T-Mobile, and apparently, DT is seeing this.

But still, two weak companies together merely means one larger weak company. They will have to prove to their customers, and potential customers that they can turn it around. That's very difficult to do. I don't see how this is going to do it. A couple of people have offered overly simplistic ideas about that, the reality is that it will be almost impossible.


Yes.

We have the phone, and it's great. but it won't mean a damn to whether this deal works or not. There are so many problems for these two companies that iPhone or not, they won't survive without making tens of billions in changes.

And, do you think that with the iPhone already selling at AT&T there will be that many new customers for the new company? I don't see it.

In fact, I don't see Apple wanting to deal with them at all.

They will still be the third largest company, and will still be losing customers, possibly at an even faster rate. They will have two incompatible systems, so only some of their customers MIGHT be able to use the phone.

T-Mobile can't control whether they get the iPhone. They would have to convince Apple that it is good for APPLE, not them. I cant see this losing company being good for anyone, much less Apple.

Verizon is the only other viable company in the US that the phone could go to for the number of increasing subscribers it has, and the use of LTE, along with AT&T.

Forget this company. That would be like going from the pan into the fire.

That's why I mentioned them. DT is doing that in the UK. I was reading about it when I was over there a week ago.

They aren't happy about being the smallest, here or there.

But Sprint can fight this if they don't want it. There's no guarantee it will go through.

While I had high hopes for WiMax two years ago, the adoption of LTE by BOTH AT&T and Verizon has changed my mind.

1. It will make a huge difference to the deal. What- I mean WHAT could a combination of the two smaller US companies bring to the table as a strength above them remaining individual companies? Everyone knows ATT's growth is fueled by the iPhone. My evidence= ATT gaining customers even though they suck. Despite what 'Seth the blogger douche' says.

2. You mention two incompatible systems, and that only some of their customers will be able to use the phone- I don't understand your logic here. If the companies merge, we have S(print) customers with CDMA phones and T(-Mobile) customers with GSM phones. Imagine that T-Sprint gets the iphone, and it is GSM. That's ok for T customers- they have been using gsm phones. But S customers- its fine for them too. Even if their last phone was a CDMA phone, their new phone is a GSM phone. The transition would be seamless for them. The customer would not care- there would be two networks and they would just move from one to the other within the same newly merged company.

3. You said that T-Mobile wold have to convince Apple the deal is good for them- ok. Easy- "Hey apple- sure Verizon is bigger- but do you want to help to make them even more powerful? Work with us- we will bend over for you, and you can make the same deal with us as you made with ATT." For this I cite Verizon's continued comments about Steve Jobs not owning innovation or whatever other crap they spew. Verizon represents the very worst of the cell phone industry in Steve's eyes- a carrier trying to nickel and dime over providing content. I think Apple would want to work with a weaker carrier first, forcing Verizon in to a better negotiating position for them later.

It really depends. I don't think anyone can discount the iPhone's impact, but it's an overreach to say that companies are switching to GSM just because of the iPhone. There is no proof of that, it's all handwaving arguments. I do believe it may be a factor, but the core reason? Come on, be realistic here. Changing network types on a nationwide scale is not cheap, it's way too much of a gamble if it's only done for a *chance* at getting the iPhone, and even if they do get it, I don't think it would pay off for that reason alone. Too strong of a downside for too little of an upside.

Everyone needs to separate company from network here. Right now we have two companies, each with their own network. The merger would mean one company, two networks.

Again, nobody has to change any networks. T-SPRINT (the new company) would simply say, "yeah yeah we have two networks, they are incompatible, they both suck, blah blah blah... but now we have the iphone. It runs on our GSM network." and that's it. They do not have to shut down/switch over one of the networks- each company represents a functioning nationwide network. Sure neither are arguably the best- and they would not be able to merge them to make one stronger network- but that's not the point. The point is that with one company, T-SPRINT could pull from a pool of customers the size of ATT and sell the iphone to them, even if they did not pick off customers fed up with ATT or unwilling to go to ATT from Verizon.

But imagine if they introduced a $75 a month everything plan for the iphone- unlimited EVERYTHING and made a statement by allowing slingbox to stream over their 3g equivalent network... I would switch...

AT&T only seems to suck BECAUSE it has the iPhone. What do you think will happen if the media eating iPhone users are on this new company? It will suck. Likely, it will suck more. T-Mobile has just a few major cities on 3G, and it's incompatible with Sprints much larger coverage which is CDMA, which the iPhone can't deal with.

Do you thing that suddenly, T-Mobile will cover the entire country? It won't. It will still have a small coverage, and that's for its regular service as well. It's much more limited than AT&T's, and people complain about that. Sprints is out of the picture entirely. Apple isn't making a CDMA phone for Verizon, and they sure ain't gonna make one for Sprint.


You have an overactive imagination. Sprint isn't getting an iPhone, and neither is T-Mobile.

You don't seem to understand the coverage problems I've been talking about. T-Mobile's coverage will still be puny, and Apple still won't make a CDMA iPhone.

If a lot of customers began using iPhones on T-Mobile's network, it would overload it more than it does the much larger AT&T network. There's no doubt about that. How many customers would be satisfied that in most of T-Mobiles coverage area there is no 3G, and won't be for months or years?

And what do you tell your new CDMA customers? "No iPhone for you!" That's 2/3rds of your customers. Oh, and what about Sprints IDEN customers? They won't be able to use it either.


What are you talking about? Do you think Apple cares if Verizon has a few million more customers than AT&T? They don't. They went to them first, remember? They want the biggest carrier in each country. Sometimes they can't get that, so they settle for a smaller one.

Again, look to China. Apple was in negotiations with China Mobile, the largest carrier in the world. Bigger than all the carriers in the US put together. Larger than all the carriers in the extended EU put together. They couldn't make a deal, so they went with China Unicom. But the three year deal is non exclusive. They're still negotiating with China mobile.

So don't say that Apple doesn't want Verizon to get a bit bigger. They don't care, or maybe they do, and would want that.

But Sprint/T-Mobile will really be a messed up company for years to come. Why would Apple want to deal with that?

Now, if they abandoned WiMax and went for LTE, in a few years it might be different, but that's billions down the hole for Sprint, and a major change in direction.

That's not quite right. If it goes through, which I'm skeptical, that would mean one company that owns three networks. Each network has a heavy infrastructure cost for as long as they keep it going. Some of the back end might be merged, but you still have the cost of maintaining three different sets of radio hardware on each tower, so consolidation can only go so far without a very heavy investment to switch over their tower radios, maybe antennas and who knows what else. That makes it hard to compete against companies that aren't dragging that anchor. So far, Sprint hasn't managed to get rid of their iDEN network. This December, the Sprint-Nextel merger will be four years old.

Yeah, that's what we've been saying. Or as Jeff has again pointed out, three networks.


That is really poor logic.

I'm just going to respond to this, as everything else you wrote seems to hinge on it:

OK- fine- I have an overactive imagination. You're right. I have no information that says that Deutsch Telecom is in negotiations with Apple to get the iPhone if it can increase its market base in the United States to that nearly of ATT.

But I am replying in this thread as though the rumor printed on the front of Apple Insider is not complete crap, and that the editor and management of this site think it's credible enough to post on its front page.

Answer this- why would Deutsch Telecom consider purchasing Sprint in the United States? Everything everyone has said on this thread is focusing on the problems between the two companies merging.

Assuming these problems are true, and Deutsch Telecom is not run by a bunch of idiots, why would they consider buying Sprint?

What- Are they going to shut it down so it can't compete with T-Mobile in the US? Are they going to use it to get employee discounts on iDen plans? These two questions are obviously sarcastic- but I want you to seriously answer the question- why would Deutsch Telecom be preparing to buy Sprint?

It's actually not if you think about the idea that most towers are concentrated in the same place for all carriers, and if they let one network die and made all new phones only work on the other network, they could gradually transition their old customers over to the new network and switch their old towers over. Granted, they may have to force some customers to buy new phones after a time, but they could gradually move people off of the old network.

I do think they should be doing this, but Sprint already had four years to get rid of iDEN and they have nothing to show for it. They've already admitted that the merger was a bad idea, now whoever buys Sprint-Nextel would have to work on decommissioning two networks and transitioning their customers to the third. It just sounds like a doubly bad idea.

by and large, assumptions are that

Apple would sign up with anyone else rather than unlock the phone altogether, thus eliminating all the grey market for unlocking (i get daily spams to unlock my phone for anywhere from $100 to $500)

and/or

Apple will invest the time and money to make a device that either supports CDMA or both CDMA/GSM despite rejecting CDMA for the iphone when it was first released.


yes but the talk is that both technologies are on the way out. making the way for LTE or whatever. so it would be counterproductive to do any switching, only to do it again in a year or so. given this, they probably would have both going at the same time.

assuming that the legals shake out and allow the merger.

I completely disagree. Consolidation means efficiencies of scale which leads to large, stagnant companies which will in turn become targets for faster, nimbler competitors. Companies have a life cycle that mimics human characteristics because they are organizations made of people making decisions, both good and bad.

yes but if what I read is correct, both of these companies support both GSM and CDMA.

unlike Verizon and Sprint which are both CDMA while the iphone is GSM


something else to consider. all the backlash that Apple is likely getting because of ATT's handling of the phone. there's no guarantee that T-mobile wouldn't get uppity and be just as bad, thus more backlash over the things Apple can't control but get blamed for cause they make the phone

also, how to handle the transition. newly sold phones is easy. they would be sim locked to T-Mobile. but what about current phones. do they just have to let current phones ride out on ATT until the person feels like upgrading again. or do they force ATT to essentially sell them the contract (ie T-Mobile pays the ETF) and immediately shut off all service to the phone, forcing the customers to download some new software that switches the sim lock to T-Mobile and then they have to go reactivate with T-Mobile. can't see that being pretty

Sprint effectively dumped WiMax. Xholm is no more.

No, when I said "jackpot", actually I was hungry for some pizza, but really, I was thinking to the fact that I wouldn't have to PAY to port my number that I have been giving out for the past 6 years, just in order to keep it while using the iPhone and I don't want a jail broke phone or whatever. I'm not to techno savvy to go through the chutes and ladders process every time Apple releases a new iPhone OS.

Regarding Apple avoiding this, I guess would be determined by the technologies of the future that are supposedly coming regarding LTE or 4G.

I don't think Apple would look at it from the standpoint as best possibilities, because were we not told by Steve Jobs that going with AT&T was the best carrier and then a year later Apple is hosting a spring time event and talking about MMS available worldwide now, available in the US at the end of Sept! And this was said in a jokingly manner with Apple management rolling their eyes!

Also, was it not just recently reported on that where in France Apple had one exclusive partnership and sales were dismal and then the French courts ruled exclusivity was illegal and Apple had two partnerships and their market share percentage went up, or something to that effect.

So based on the fact that Apple really isn't concerned about the carrier's ability and the fact that the market share increases when the iPhone is available to multiple carriers in one nation, then why not a large T-Mobile merged with Sprint. Maybe T-Mobile will dump the PRE?!

And why should T-Mobile's debt be a problem, the bozos in Washington think debt and deficits is no big deal, just you don't try and "protest" against them...

Finally, RIP Patrick Swayze. No more pain and discomfort from your Pancreatic cancer. You left an indelible mark with your talent and will be looked upon fondly. Thanks for your movies Dirty Dancing, Ghost, and your tv movie miniseries, North and South... may God Bless you into His Kingdom of Peace and Love!

Except there are two problems with this: Verizon will continue to use CDMA for voice for years after 4G is rolled out, and the 4G rollout will take until 2012, according to Verizon itself.

First, Verizon has publicly stated that although they are beginning trials of 4G, they are "very happy" with CDMA's voice capabilities, and they plan to continue to keep CDMA around well into 2018. The reason is simple: they have to keep CDMA around for all their existing customers, so they will use their significant CMDA investment a while longer to reduce cost and risk during the rollout. Meaning they can roll out LTE as time and money permit, using the CDMA fallback as necessary. The LTE phones that Verizon carries will include a CDMA fallback radio so that they function when LTE is not available, but the iPhone won't have any such capability. The iPhone 3G could be sold nationwide because it would just fall back to 2.5G. Verizon stores on the other hand would be overrun with angry people who can't use their phone in the vast parts of the midwest that were still running on a 2G network up until early 2009.

Second, Verizon publicly said they will begin their 4G rollout in late 2010 with 20-30 cities. By 2011, they will have expanded it to the top 50 markets and it will continue into 2012. By 2012 they hope to have coverage in 175-200 markets--but note they said coverage IN 200 markets, not coverage OF 200 markets. To cover a market, they can put up a tower in a crowded area like a downtown center, and leave the rest of the city on CDMA until they have more capital to spend.


They had no choice. They either worked with China Unicom, or no company at all, because CU is the only company in China that uses the same GSM band as the iPhone. Apple has plenty of choices in the USA, and I see no reason they'd want to give in to any of Verizon's demands (like crippling the phone via software just so Verizon can charge for Bluetooth).

DT is having problems with a number of its carrier properties around the world in that they are market trailers. They seem to have little, or no growth potential. By "merging" with others, they can get some mass. In the UK that makes a lot of sense, as they are on the same GSM systems, but the question is what they think they are going to accomplish here.

T-Mobile's new customer acquisition is in trouble, as the smallest of the major carriers, they are being pushed out. Both AT&T and Verizon are gaining new customers at a good clip. Sprint is losing them at a good clip. T-Mobile is losing the ability to attract new customers, and we can see that in the shrinking new customer numbers.

Where can T-Mobile get more customers? Well, the only other company that DT can afford is Sprint. So they are looking at that. It's not just an AI story, you know.

We're not the only ones questioning this deal. I'm reading questions in the WSJ, the NYTimes among other places.

Companies get together for several reasons. One is because they have synergy. Each company had half of what would be a fantastic property. Together they are more than the whole. But is that the case here? I don't see it.

Then other times they need the mass, as I've said, but do they get that here? With two major systems, and a third minor one, that will be very hard to accomplish. They can't let one system just die on the vine, all those customers would think of leaving, and many would.

Next is cost savings. Because they couldn't easily combine operations, the savings wouldn't be that great, and would be vastly overshadowed by the cost of integration as they must choose one final system to run with for the long term.

As to the iPhone. Why would Apple be interested? The GSM system is small, there's hardly any 3G operating. The road to 4G is questionable. The success of the company would be also questionable.

As with most big companies, management of DT isn't dumb, but they can make mistakes. We only have to look at the financial industry to see how that can happen.

Towers are just that. It's the transceivers on the towers that matter. T-Mobile has fewer towers, and they have fewer transceivers. T-Mobile is not even in large parts of the country. So Sprint has tens of thousands of CDMA transceivers on many more towers than does T-Mobile. T-Mobile can take advantage of more towers, but then has to spend literally tens of billions changing all the transceivers to GSM models, or at least adding them to the CDMA towers until they can finally, years later, cut out CDMA entirely. They also need to change the equipment in their buildings, and the software. It's a real mess.

LTE won't be viable until late 2011. Then it will cover most of the US from both at7t and Verizon.

It will take longer for T-Mobile (what should we use for a shorthand name for this that doesn't sound too cute?) because Verizon has already started, and AT&T has made up its plans and is considering how todo the rollout.

Knowing how far behind T-Mobile is with 3G, we can see that LTE won't come quick.

What happens in the meantime? What if frustrated customers start to leave in larger numbers because of the problems caused by this "merger"?

Well, that's one point. All Apple had to do was to kill WiFi.

But with LTE here in the States, it won't matter about CDMA.

Thanks for your comments. I just couldn't get my head around why they would do this. Now I get it.

It looks as though Apple doesn't want to build devices with technology they think is irrelevant to most users if it adds to the cost, even by a little.

With LTE being the next jump in technology, Apple will want to go with that. With both AT&T and Verizon working on that, it gives them the potential of a subscriber base of 164 million. That's with two growing companies. One technology.

What will this company offer that could match that?

I'm looking at incremental sales. If Apple adds Verizon, they could add another 25% to their sales. I don't see much more.

Why? Because AT&T is already getting substantial sales coming in from all three other companies. Some people are coming in from Verizon now. If Verizon has the phone, the people who were moving, would just get the phone from Verizon, no increase from them. Some people now on AT&T getting an iPhone would move to Verizon to get it, so no new sales there either. So maybe about a 25% rise.

As they are already getting people to come over from both Sprint and T-Mobile, many of them would also be no new customers. In fact, I surmise that many Sprint customers moving to AT&T for the iPhone might have left anyway, so no gain there either. Almost the same thing for T-Mobile.

So this new company, if everything worked out just right might add another 10% to Apple's sales. Not enough to make another phone, and possibly not enough to want to even bother with the new problem fraught company.

And what would that 10% be when considering worldwide sales? Maybe 5%. After China comes on board with China Unicom, maybe 3%. If then China Mobile is added, perhaps 1%?

Why bother?

Sprint has talked about dumping Nextel. What if T-mobile bought Nextel to get their towers and spectrum for LTE? nextels push to talk is a completely separate radio system, they must have a good bit of spectrum.

But as you say, CDMA is for fallback only on LTE phones. That doesn't mean that new phones would even need it. I did say by the end of 2011, which is the same as saying by 2012.

It would be mostly for their cheap and "free" phones that wouldn't have LTE capabilities, until that became cheap enough to add to even those.

We don't have, nor do we need exact dates. Apple could move in June 2012, when they announce the new phones. That would likely be the best time.


Not true. Apple was first negotiating with China mobile, and is STILL negotiating with them. It's likely we'll see in on both carriers late this year, or the next.

We don't know what the industry will look like in 2012. Verizon is now beginning to break with its old policy. It must if it expects to get the Pre, and possibly the Pixi, and all those Android phones. No one would buy them from Verizon if there were restrictions there that weren't anywhere else.

Doesn't it feel that talking to these profiles [specifically about this subject] is right up there with talking to first graders?

I try to think these things through. The topics are complex. I think that some people just think, wow! This is cool, Apple could make a great deal with them because the iPhone is so great, and this company just would want to have it, so you know, like they would do anything to get it, and well, Apple would be just so happy with that, being that they just, you know, hate Verizon because they turned them down the first tine, and um, who needs that restrictive software stuff that Verizon does.

So this deal would be just so cool, and Apple is so cool.

Uh, that's enough, right?

Yep, the universal end of exclusive iPhone deals is nearing us, everyone knows. Apple may start gaining royalties like Qualcomm, I guess.

And most don't have a good understanding of the basic technologies to appreciate the complexities involved.

Perhaps the following excerpt will help. It may ned some further vetting and updating, but it is one of the best descriptions on wireless protocols we have seen.

"GSM and CDMA are different wireless protocols, or "air interfaces".

GSM is a worldwide nonproprietary standard. It is a variation of TDMA - time division multiple access. It allows many phones to use the same radio channel via a technique of "time slicing": each phone on the channel transmits only during its allotted time slot.

CDMA is a proprietary standard and while there are CDMA systems in over 50 countries, it is not the "world standard" - if you want a "world phone" you want a GSM quad-band phone. South Korea is one of CDMA's chief users besides the US. CDMA stands for "code division multiple access." It uses a spread-spectrum technique; different phones share the same channel by using different spread-spectrum keys.

On top of these differences you have to consider frequencies. GSM in North America uses two bands, 850 MHz and 1900 MHz. GSM in almost all of the rest of the world (ROW) uses two other bands, 900 and 1800 MHz.

These days most any GSM phone you get will be at least a dual-band phone: it will work on both bands used in your area. If you plan on traveling internationally and you want to use your phone, you can get tri-band GSM phones that work on both US bands and one of the ROW bands. Or if you live elsewhere you can get tri-band GSM phones that cover both of the ROW bands and one of the US bands. And of course there are quad-band GSM phones that cover all four. These will work on *almost* any GSM system in the world, assuming you have either a local SIM card or that international roaming is turned on for your account. There are a few oddball systems out there on different frequencies entirely.

CDMA has similar issues with frequencies. The first big build of CDMA in the US was by Sprint; they used 1900 MHz exclusively and called it "PCS". Verizon's CDMA towers use the same CDMA protocol, but on the 800 MHz band.

Most CDMA phones sold in the US will work on both bands so that you can roam on the other carrier's towers. In fact a lot of Verizon's older phones were "dual-band/tri mode", meaning they would work on both of the CDMA bands and also on the old AMPS analog towers (also 800 MHz). The need for those has gone away since many of the old analog cellular systems have been shut down. Sprint's PCS phones were orginally 1900 only, but most of their phones now are dual-band CDMA.

CDMA in South Korea uses different frequencies entirely; no US CDMA phone will work there, nor vice versa, even though we both use CDMA. (n.b.: If you travel to South Korea, there are phone rental booths in the airport... or at least there were the last time I was there. You can even keep your same number on the rental phone.)

There are CDMA systems in other countries here and there but in almost everyplace other than North America and South Korea, GSM is dominant.

So, so far we have GSM phones that might be dual-band (either North America or ROW only, not both), tri-band, or quad-band; and we have US CDMA phones that work on the two US CDMA bands; and we have South Korea's CDMA phones that work in South Korea. Of course GSM phones won't work on any CDMA tower, nor vice versa.

None of these provide 3G capabilities.

3G is not a specific air interface protocol. It is more of a name for a set of features and capabilities - if your system meets a specified set of capabilities (like data speed, simultaneous voice and data from the same phone at the same time, many others), you can call it a "3G" system. Just like both CDMA and GSM are commonly recognized as 2G or 2.5G (depending on features like EDGE), there are several different air interfaces that are all called "3G" and provide 3G capabilities. Yes, one of the key 3G capabilities is data transfer speed for a data connection - but there's a lot more to it than just higher data speed. The WIkipedia article on 3G has the details.

There are two 3G systems in common use today. One is called EV-DO. This is an extension of CDMA and accordingly is commonly found as the 3G upgrade to existing CDMA systems. So the 3G offered by Verizon and Sprint in the US is using EV-DO.

The other 3G system in common use is called UMTS. It is designed as the 3G upgrade for existing GSM providers.

There are frequency issues here too, just as there are for CDMA and GSM.

Both AT&T and T-mobile are providing UMTS.. but on different bands. My HTC TyTN II does quad-band GSM but it will not work on T-mobile's UMTS (1700/2100 MHz). It does work on AT&T's UMTS (850/1900 MHz), and also on UMTS in Europe (2100 MHz, but different from T-mo's 1700/2100).

UMTS includes an optional upgrade called HSPA. One piece of that is called HSPDA, which provides what is being called 3.5G data speed.

Note that 3G is not just for data access. 3G systems provide both voice and data services. My HTC phone will not work on any 2G system in Japan. However, it does work on Japan's UMTS systems (2100 MHz). Thus my phone works for both voice and high speed data in Japan, relying solely on its 3G capabilities.

Now... that covers the differences between the systems, sort of. There's a lot more detail and I've simplified a lot, but those are the basics.

Can you have a phone that has GSM, CDMA, and 3G? Yes - the Blackberry Storm is one example. It does CDMA in the US; it does quad-band GSM for near-worldwide GSM service. It does both EVDO (3G in the US) and UMTS (3G 2100) in many other countries.

Yes, it is standard GSM. I was surprised that they did quad-band GSM; I thought it would be ROW GSM only, but it is indeed quad-band. However it will usually not work on GSM in the US because there will usually be a Verizon or even Sprint CDMA tower handy; Sprint and Verizon have roaming agreements with each other such that using each others' towers is transparent and doesn't usually incur "roaming" charges even if the phone says you are roaming. About the only "non-USA" thing about it is that it won't do UMTS on any US carrier, but this doesn't make it not true GSM.

Also note that even if there were no CDMA/GPS/3G phones on the market, this would not prove that it isn't possible. It would only mean that no one has done it... this is usually for economic reasons. Carriers love to lock you into their systems and keep you there, and making your phone work on as few other systems as possible is one way they do that. The only reason Verizon and Blackberry decided to make the Storm is that Verizon was tired of losing world-traveling customers (who wanted a single phone they could use worldwide) to AT&T and T-mobile. It used to be if you wanted a "world phone" (or as close as is possible given the hodgepodge of "standards" around the world) you had to go to one of those carruers and get a quad-band GSM phone; no more." Sullivan. http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question...2042019AAt9J2P

A further explanation well worth rereading.

The problem here is that it isn't free. They'll have to install new equipment at every single tower and then with a third set of radios, they'll have to pay higher electric bills at every tower site. The infrastructure costs might cost more than the merger itself. It would have major problems for the ability of the new T-Mobile USA to make money and probably put parent Deutsche Telekom in pretty large hole as well. The costs and number of subscribers would be very similar to the combined European holdings.

high school physics

low frequency high wavelength will give you penetration and range. high frequency and low wavelength will give you data speed but shorter range and horrible penetration of buildings

i think i read somewhere that the 850MHz band is a nice compromise

Unfortunately, many here obviously skipped class.

It would be nice if you could reference "the compromise."

And for some arcane reason, T-Mobile in the US also uses 1700 MHz for its GSM. Another bolloxed up situation.

Here's their mess, quoted from Phonescoop.com:

Here's how I see it going down:

1. T-Mobile and Sprint merge.
2. Apple breaks exclusive agreement and deals with both AT&T and Verizon.
3. T-Moble/Sprint closes their doors and boards up the windows.

Lawl...

I don't think so.

T-Mobile didn't have much of a choice. They didn't have enough spectrum to deploy 3G on their current 1900 setup. They had to get more by buying the AWS spectrum (2100/1700). Sure, it makes it harder to get a device that handles all of the global bands, but T-Mobile had to do what they had to do.

Joe

keep on praying for a verizon iphone