I'm month-to-month now ... I hope they grandfather me in again. If not, seems like it would be easy pickings for a class-action suit.
Thoughts?
My thought is they could disconnect your phone because they didn't like this post and there is nothing you could do. You are month-to-month. Legally what you have is a contract that you and AT&T both agree (currently) to renew each month. They can unilaterally decide not to renew that next month. They don't have to give you anything. They no longer sell unlimited data, they don't have to keep providing it to you, they are temporarily because they didn't want to lose people to Verizon. Don't expect those kindnesses to last long.
McDonald's stopped selling the McRibb, you gonna get a class action against them for not grandfathering you in?
I'm psyched about getting an iPhone5. I've been hanging on to my iPhone3G for a while (if 2.5 years of total use counts as a while).
My AT&T service agreement--I'm month-to-month now, out of contract--still lets me get unlimited 3G data usage without the 2GB/month cap. I've only ever used that much once when I was on vacation, but it's nice to know I don't have to worry about data usage (I thought we got rid of metered usage in the 90s...).
With AT&T moving to 4G, will they be able to cap my data usage next time I upgrade by claiming it's a different service? I hope they grandfather me in again. If not, seems like it would be easy pickings for a class-action suit.
Thoughts?
Read the fine print. AT&T, Verizon etc. etc. can discontinue any plan at any time . They won't terminate a current subsidized phone plan someone has though because then they wouldn't recoup the subsidy. When you upgrade they are not obligated to grandfather you into any plan even though they may decide to do so.
Not quite sure how selling off a division allows any company to retain anything. Is it an actual sale? Or is it some kind of tricky joint-venture?
I just hope the deal helps to improve my AT&T reception. Really bad where I live, and not just up in the hills. It's bad down in the flats too, and that's a densely populated suburban area...
As a result of this deal Deutsche Telekom will own 8% of AT&T.
The higher the frequency, the more data you can transmit.
Not quite. Higher frequencies mean less propagation (cell size is smaller) thus you need more cells to cover a particular area. More BANDWIDTH on the other hand means that more data can be transmitted. Since lower frequencies are often occupied by older tech, there isn't as much free bandwidht for high-speed services, thus the higher frequency bands being used.
For example GSM @ 1800Mhz is much slower than HSPA @900MHz. The reason? Bandwidth. GSM uses 0.2Mhz slices for each cell, HSPA uses 5MHz slices (or even up to 20 with bundling in the near future).
Note: I?m not saying I disagree with you as I do think it?s possible that AT&T could be using voice algorithms in heavily congested cities that do use less data (I.e.: inferior quality) in order to keep the voice as real-time as possible for the amount of connections it has.
Hmm. Voice usually gets ultra-high priority on radio and transmission links so that is likely not the case unless they've statically configured those cells to use the lower codec rates. It is possible though, but the benefit wouldn't be too big (kilobits/active call/cell).
Normal AMR is 12.2kbps and you can offer quite a few of those (remember the DCH theoretical capacity being 2Mbps) before you have to start lowering the codec rate to the lower speeds due to interference and other issues to actually see (or hear) a poorer voice quality. If I remember correctly, we would have to be in the range of a hundred users active in the cell for that to happen.
My original reply to this post was meant to point out that T-Mobile wouldn't be getting the iPhone. I read Engadget's post that linked to T-Mobile's buyout FAQ where they specifically stated they wouldn't be getting the iPhone (found here) before I checked AppleInsider, so when i saw their (AppleInsider's) story claiming they would be getting it, I was surprised to see them make such an obvious mistake. I wrote out a reply showing T-Mobile's statement, and after I re-read it, something struck me.
I read T-Mobile's statement again and found the specific wording somewhat curious. It seems as if they're answering the very specific question as to whether or not they'll (T-Mobile as it exists today) be getting the iPhone now, not if the future post-merger AT&T (who already has it, making the question mute) will be. This is a buyout, not a merger, think AT&T and Cingular, not Compaq and HP. Unless they plan on making 2 versions of AT&T, one with the iPhone and one without, then we already know whether or not T-Mobile's old customers will finally have access to Cupertino's device, and the answer is a resounding yes! It may seem as though T-Mobile is being intentionally misleading, but it makes sense as to why they would answer they way they did. Like I said above, AT&T is buying T-Mobile, so of course T-Mobile won't be getting it - they won't exist in 12 months. And of course T-Mobile doesn't want to make it clear that if their customers wait, they can get an iPhone relatively soon, all that could possibly do is slow down sales for existing phones, which is exactly why they finished their statement by pointing out the wonderful phones you can buy now, before AT&T owns them and collects 100% of the profit.
As always with big announcements, this leads us with more questions than answers\ How do they plan on consolidating the differences in GSM frequencies that T-Mobile and AT&T currently use? T-Mobile does actually have pretty fast 3G data (they call it "4G", but that's a joke) and it would be insane to just throw away the advancements and infrastructure they've implemented. Is AT&T going to use 3G/"4G" chips in all future phones that take advantage of the full range of GSM frequencies? Or will they simply focus on implementing their LTE network? Did Apple have future knowledge of this buyout? Did they have enough time to implement the new frequencies/capabilities T-Mobile's infrastructure provides into the imminently arriving iPhone 5? If Apple is learning about this along with the rest of us, will they attempt to alter the design at the last minute? Or has production already begun? I guess one factor to remember is that this buyout and takeover won't be completed for another year, so technically Apple has until the iPhone 6 to implement a design that uses both sets of GSM frequencies.
My original reply to this post was meant to point out that T-Mobile wouldn't be getting the iPhone. I read Engadget's post that linked to T-Mobile's buyout FAQ where they specifically stated they wouldn't be getting the iPhone (found here) before I checked AppleInsider, so when i saw their (AppleInsider's) story claiming they would be getting it, I was surprised to see them make such an obvious mistake. I wrote out a reply showing T-Mobile's statement, and after I re-read it, something struck me.
I read T-Mobile's statement again and found the specific wording somewhat curious. It seems as if they're answering the very specific question as to whether or not they'll (T-Mobile as it exists today) be getting the iPhone now, not if the future post-merger AT&T (who already has it, making the question mute) will be. This is a buyout, not a merger, think AT&T and Cingular, not Compaq and HP. Unless they plan on making 2 versions of AT&T, one with the iPhone and one without, then we already know whether or not T-Mobile's old customers will finally have access to Cupertino's device, and the answer is a resounding yes! It may seem as though T-Mobile is being intentionally misleading, but it makes sense as to why they would answer they way they did. Like I said above, AT&T is buying T-Mobile, so of course T-Mobile won't be getting it - they won't exist in 12 months. And of course T-Mobile doesn't want to make it clear that if their customers wait, they can get an iPhone relatively soon, all that could possibly do is slow down sales for existing phones, which is exactly why they finished their statement by pointing out the wonderful phones you can buy now, before AT&T owns them and collects 100% of the profit.
As always with big announcements, this leads us with more questions than answers\ How do they plan on consolidating the differences in GSM frequencies that T-Mobile and AT&T currently use? T-Mobile does actually have pretty fast 3G data (they call it "4G", but that's a joke) and it would be insane to just throw away the advancements and infrastructure they've implemented. Is AT&T going to use 3G/"4G" chips in all future phones that take advantage of the full range of GSM frequencies? Or will they simply focus on implementing their LTE network? Did Apple have future knowledge of this buyout? Did they have enough time to implement the new frequencies/capabilities T-Mobile's infrastructure provides into the imminently arriving iPhone 5? If Apple is learning about this along with the rest of us, will they attempt to alter the design at the last minute? Or has production already begun? I guess one factor to remember is that this buyout and takeover won't be completed for another year, so technically Apple has until the iPhone 6 to implement a design that uses both sets of GSM frequencies.
The only thing T-Mobile has posted about the iPhone since the announcement:
Quote:
Is T-Mobile USA getting the iPhone?
T-Mobile USA remains an independent company. The acquisition is expected to be completed in approximately 12 months. We do not offer the iPhone. We offer cutting edge devices like the Samsung Galaxy S 4G and coming soon our new Sidekick 4G.
I gather that a course in basic English is in order, especially in 'verb tensing'.
Not understanding the difference in simple and and future tenses would start. Makes one wonder how many dumber-than-doorknobbers are out there. Certainly a lot of them are here.
As for the 'conspiracy theory'; hopefully the doorknob is only one one sided of the door. IMO.
I gather that a course in basic English is in order, especially in 'verb tensing'.
Not understanding the difference in simple and and future tenses would start. Makes one wonder how many dumber-than-doorknobbers are out there. Certainly a lot of them are here.
I don't really get what you're trying to say, so I must be a "dumber-than-doorknobber." What I do know is that the title of the article and the statement from T-mobile are at odds.
"T-Mobile gets the iPhone"
"We do not offer the iPhone."
When one "gets" something, it has happened. T-mobile has gotten no iPhone. (You might say "Onhka gets to go to the moon" but you'd be wrong, it should be "Onhka will get to go to the moon" or "Onhka gets the opportunity to go to the moon.")
Regardless of semantics, what should be obvious is that T-mobile will never sell an iPhone. Once the acquisition is complete there will be no more T-mobile. And let's be clear, AT&T is acquiring T-mobile, not merging with them. AT&T is interested only in buying T-mobile's spectrum, and I suppose it's possible their customers too -- but certainly not at $1,150 a head.
No, first of all, coverage will only get better so don't een bring that up as a reason that makes no sense. Secondly, if you have a contract you'll be protected by terms in said contract; thirdly T Mobile is for now just a fully owned subsidiary and rates will theoretically no be affected.
I meant that coverage was all right and I don't need any more coverage from ATT.
I'm not sure where you get your numbers from, but last I checked, WiMax *only* made it to medium markets (meaning it was not rolled out in larger markets due to their size and cost.) This is why cities like Baltimore were among the first to get WiMax service, rather than the likes of NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.
Judging by the coverage map (as of today) - WiMax doesn't have 1/2 the coverage that T-Mobile has. Verizon has even less, and AT&T has no 4G signal yet. So, no - the "majority" does not have 4G signal at this time, unless it's that of T-Mobile's HSPA+ network.
You can't judge by area on a map without including the population data that lives in that area. Verizon had 100 million people covered with LTE by year end 2010, and are on pace to double that number by June 2011. I would call that significant.
I don't really get what you're trying to say, so I must be a "dumber-than-doorknobber." What I do know is that the title of the article and the statement from T-mobile are at odds.
"T-Mobile gets the iPhone"
"We do not offer the iPhone."
When one "gets" something, it has happened. T-mobile has gotten no iPhone. (You might say "Onhka gets to go to the moon" but you'd be wrong, it should be "Onhka will get to go to the moon" or "Onhka gets the opportunity to go to the moon.")
Regardless of semantics, what should be obvious is that T-mobile will never sell an iPhone. Once the acquisition is complete there will be no more T-mobile. And let's be clear, AT&T is acquiring T-mobile, not merging with them. AT&T is interested only in buying T-mobile's spectrum, and I suppose it's possible their customers too -- but certainly not at $1,150 a head.
Was I talking or referring to you?
My point from the requests I had made for links to statements that said T-Mobile stated or published a press-release that they were not getting the iPhone.
AppleInsider's headline was common evidence of we call, "Yellow Journalism". Obviously written by unschooled, ignorant, hound-seekers. But that is the nature that the internet breeds. Not necessarily what its readers or commentators should grow up to be like.
My thought is they could disconnect your phone because they didn't like this post and there is nothing you could do. You are month-to-month. Legally what you have is a contract that you and AT&T both agree (currently) to renew each month. They can unilaterally decide not to renew that next month. They don't have to give you anything. They no longer sell unlimited data, they don't have to keep providing it to you, they are temporarily because they didn't want to lose people to Verizon. Don't expect those kindnesses to last long.
McDonald's stopped selling the McRibb, you gonna get a class action against them for not grandfathering you in?
The McRib doesn't come with a rider defining what constitutes a McRib (What DOES constitute a McRib, anyway?), but I see your point.
Well, if that's the case, I don't have any compelling reason to stay with AT&T. Good to know. Thanks.
Nice to see the US once again playing catchup. I have a T-Mobile iPhone here in the UK and I love it. They have the best coverage, the fastest 3G and best customer service in the UK.
Having frequently visited the US, if I had to put up full time with the lousy service provided by AT&T and Verizon, i'd go mad - I can't believe what a second rate cell phone network the states has.
It's really a matter of geography I think as much as anything else. I mean the UK is maybe the size of Florida? Companies here in the states have a MUCH larger landmass to service, and this makes the networks vastly more expensive to implement and maintain.
They're going to be a single network. There won't be a such thing as "AT&T's Network" or "T-Mobile's Network" ... the two are compatible with one another. This primarily gives customers access to more towers.
On the down side, AT&T's customer service and rate plans leave something to be desired. My current T-Mobile bill is probably going to double after this goes through. I'm not at all happy about it.
If you're seriously concerned about this, then I would say renew your T-Mobile contract now. That would price lock you for probably 2 years. Not a great solution, but it could be helpful.
I think Verizon buys Sprint only if the T-Mobile sale goes through - and I'm not sure it will.
Oracle won't win squat, though HTC will win their suit and force Apple to stop all sales of the iPad and iPhone (no they won't, but most of these tech suits are ridiculous and will end up with some meaningless settlements, everybody borrows somewhat from everyone else. Apple borrowed from MS and MS borrowed from Apple in their OSes). Oracle is just trying to get in on the mobile computing action and sees that Android right now looks to take over the marketplace (and already is in reality). Everybody is going to want to sue Google over the next few years because of what Google is building. Apple sued a member of the open handset alliance for the same reason, because they're scared of what Google may do down the line. Oracle wants to control Android because they see the future and this is their potential way in. Android would give Oracle a long term foot in future markets.
Anyways, I suspect the royalties to Oracle if they come will not come off the Android OS but will instead be royalties off the apps, which would change the Android marketplace.
But to the main point, I'm still not sure that the T-Mobile sale would go through especially since it would open the door for Sprint to be bought by Verizon. If the deal does get nixed I could still see Verizon expanding. Sprint will get left on its own, but VZW could buy either US Cellular, MetroPCS, or both in smaller deals that would likely get approved. If the FCC allows the T-Mobile sale then I see Verizon buying Sprint, MetroPCS, and US Cellular. That would give VZW around 160 million subscribers.
Not that I know anything really about the FCC and how these decisions are made, but I would be surprised if ATT came this far down this path without being pretty confident about it getting approval. As to Sprint, personally I would think that the FCC may allow the T-Mobile sale but this would probably kill any possibility of either ATT or Verizon buying Sprint since this really would create a duopoly.
Who really knows though... It's all political, and it will all boil down to who's hands get greased by whom.
Comments
You're right. You only need to recall how AT&T swallowed Cingular as an example of how it will go with T-Mobile.
I just wonder if AT&T will incorporate the color pink into it's overall color scheme as it did with Cingular's orange.
Correction: Cingular swallowed AT&T.
I'm month-to-month now ... I hope they grandfather me in again. If not, seems like it would be easy pickings for a class-action suit.
Thoughts?
My thought is they could disconnect your phone because they didn't like this post and there is nothing you could do. You are month-to-month. Legally what you have is a contract that you and AT&T both agree (currently) to renew each month. They can unilaterally decide not to renew that next month. They don't have to give you anything. They no longer sell unlimited data, they don't have to keep providing it to you, they are temporarily because they didn't want to lose people to Verizon. Don't expect those kindnesses to last long.
McDonald's stopped selling the McRibb, you gonna get a class action against them for not grandfathering you in?
Hi.
I'm psyched about getting an iPhone5. I've been hanging on to my iPhone3G for a while (if 2.5 years of total use counts as a while).
My AT&T service agreement--I'm month-to-month now, out of contract--still lets me get unlimited 3G data usage without the 2GB/month cap. I've only ever used that much once when I was on vacation, but it's nice to know I don't have to worry about data usage (I thought we got rid of metered usage in the 90s...).
With AT&T moving to 4G, will they be able to cap my data usage next time I upgrade by claiming it's a different service? I hope they grandfather me in again. If not, seems like it would be easy pickings for a class-action suit.
Thoughts?
Read the fine print. AT&T, Verizon etc. etc. can discontinue any plan at any time . They won't terminate a current subsidized phone plan someone has though because then they wouldn't recoup the subsidy. When you upgrade they are not obligated to grandfather you into any plan even though they may decide to do so.
Not quite sure how selling off a division allows any company to retain anything. Is it an actual sale? Or is it some kind of tricky joint-venture?
I just hope the deal helps to improve my AT&T reception. Really bad where I live, and not just up in the hills. It's bad down in the flats too, and that's a densely populated suburban area...
As a result of this deal Deutsche Telekom will own 8% of AT&T.
The higher the frequency, the more data you can transmit.
Not quite. Higher frequencies mean less propagation (cell size is smaller) thus you need more cells to cover a particular area. More BANDWIDTH on the other hand means that more data can be transmitted. Since lower frequencies are often occupied by older tech, there isn't as much free bandwidht for high-speed services, thus the higher frequency bands being used.
For example GSM @ 1800Mhz is much slower than HSPA @900MHz. The reason? Bandwidth. GSM uses 0.2Mhz slices for each cell, HSPA uses 5MHz slices (or even up to 20 with bundling in the near future).
Regs, Jarkko
Note: I?m not saying I disagree with you as I do think it?s possible that AT&T could be using voice algorithms in heavily congested cities that do use less data (I.e.: inferior quality) in order to keep the voice as real-time as possible for the amount of connections it has.
Hmm. Voice usually gets ultra-high priority on radio and transmission links so that is likely not the case unless they've statically configured those cells to use the lower codec rates. It is possible though, but the benefit wouldn't be too big (kilobits/active call/cell).
Normal AMR is 12.2kbps and you can offer quite a few of those (remember the DCH theoretical capacity being 2Mbps) before you have to start lowering the codec rate to the lower speeds due to interference and other issues to actually see (or hear) a poorer voice quality. If I remember correctly, we would have to be in the range of a hundred users active in the cell for that to happen.
Regs, Jarkko
I read T-Mobile's statement again and found the specific wording somewhat curious. It seems as if they're answering the very specific question as to whether or not they'll (T-Mobile as it exists today) be getting the iPhone now, not if the future post-merger AT&T (who already has it, making the question mute) will be. This is a buyout, not a merger, think AT&T and Cingular, not Compaq and HP. Unless they plan on making 2 versions of AT&T, one with the iPhone and one without, then we already know whether or not T-Mobile's old customers will finally have access to Cupertino's device, and the answer is a resounding yes!
As always with big announcements, this leads us with more questions than answers
It's not a press release, but it only took about a minute to find this one:
http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/article...quires-tmobile
My original reply to this post was meant to point out that T-Mobile wouldn't be getting the iPhone. I read Engadget's post that linked to T-Mobile's buyout FAQ where they specifically stated they wouldn't be getting the iPhone (found here) before I checked AppleInsider, so when i saw their (AppleInsider's) story claiming they would be getting it, I was surprised to see them make such an obvious mistake. I wrote out a reply showing T-Mobile's statement, and after I re-read it, something struck me.
I read T-Mobile's statement again and found the specific wording somewhat curious. It seems as if they're answering the very specific question as to whether or not they'll (T-Mobile as it exists today) be getting the iPhone now, not if the future post-merger AT&T (who already has it, making the question mute) will be. This is a buyout, not a merger, think AT&T and Cingular, not Compaq and HP. Unless they plan on making 2 versions of AT&T, one with the iPhone and one without, then we already know whether or not T-Mobile's old customers will finally have access to Cupertino's device, and the answer is a resounding yes!
As always with big announcements, this leads us with more questions than answers
The only thing T-Mobile has posted about the iPhone since the announcement:
Is T-Mobile USA getting the iPhone?
T-Mobile USA remains an independent company. The acquisition is expected to be completed in approximately 12 months. We do not offer the iPhone. We offer cutting edge devices like the Samsung Galaxy S 4G and coming soon our new Sidekick 4G.
http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/article...quires-tmobile
I gather that a course in basic English is in order, especially in 'verb tensing'.
Not understanding the difference in simple and and future tenses would start. Makes one wonder how many dumber-than-doorknobbers are out there. Certainly a lot of them are here.
As for the 'conspiracy theory'; hopefully the doorknob is only one one sided of the door. IMO.
I gather that a course in basic English is in order, especially in 'verb tensing'.
Not understanding the difference in simple and and future tenses would start. Makes one wonder how many dumber-than-doorknobbers are out there. Certainly a lot of them are here.
I don't really get what you're trying to say, so I must be a "dumber-than-doorknobber." What I do know is that the title of the article and the statement from T-mobile are at odds.
"T-Mobile gets the iPhone"
"We do not offer the iPhone."
When one "gets" something, it has happened. T-mobile has gotten no iPhone. (You might say "Onhka gets to go to the moon" but you'd be wrong, it should be "Onhka will get to go to the moon" or "Onhka gets the opportunity to go to the moon.")
Regardless of semantics, what should be obvious is that T-mobile will never sell an iPhone. Once the acquisition is complete there will be no more T-mobile. And let's be clear, AT&T is acquiring T-mobile, not merging with them. AT&T is interested only in buying T-mobile's spectrum, and I suppose it's possible their customers too -- but certainly not at $1,150 a head.
By selling T-Mobile to AT&T, Deutsche Telekom retains a foothold in the US market
If Deutsche Telekom is selling T-Mobile USA, how does it retain a foothold?
If Deutsche Telekom is selling T-Mobile USA, how does it retain a foothold?
By becoming a fairly large shareholder in AT&T with the few tens of billion in new AT&T stocks that will be part of the transaction.
No, first of all, coverage will only get better so don't een bring that up as a reason that makes no sense. Secondly, if you have a contract you'll be protected by terms in said contract; thirdly T Mobile is for now just a fully owned subsidiary and rates will theoretically no be affected.
I meant that coverage was all right and I don't need any more coverage from ATT.
I'm not sure where you get your numbers from, but last I checked, WiMax *only* made it to medium markets (meaning it was not rolled out in larger markets due to their size and cost.) This is why cities like Baltimore were among the first to get WiMax service, rather than the likes of NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.
Judging by the coverage map (as of today) - WiMax doesn't have 1/2 the coverage that T-Mobile has. Verizon has even less, and AT&T has no 4G signal yet. So, no - the "majority" does not have 4G signal at this time, unless it's that of T-Mobile's HSPA+ network.
You can't judge by area on a map without including the population data that lives in that area. Verizon had 100 million people covered with LTE by year end 2010, and are on pace to double that number by June 2011. I would call that significant.
I don't really get what you're trying to say, so I must be a "dumber-than-doorknobber." What I do know is that the title of the article and the statement from T-mobile are at odds.
"T-Mobile gets the iPhone"
"We do not offer the iPhone."
When one "gets" something, it has happened. T-mobile has gotten no iPhone. (You might say "Onhka gets to go to the moon" but you'd be wrong, it should be "Onhka will get to go to the moon" or "Onhka gets the opportunity to go to the moon.")
Regardless of semantics, what should be obvious is that T-mobile will never sell an iPhone. Once the acquisition is complete there will be no more T-mobile. And let's be clear, AT&T is acquiring T-mobile, not merging with them. AT&T is interested only in buying T-mobile's spectrum, and I suppose it's possible their customers too -- but certainly not at $1,150 a head.
Was I talking or referring to you?
My point from the requests I had made for links to statements that said T-Mobile stated or published a press-release that they were not getting the iPhone.
AppleInsider's headline was common evidence of we call, "Yellow Journalism". Obviously written by unschooled, ignorant, hound-seekers. But that is the nature that the internet breeds. Not necessarily what its readers or commentators should grow up to be like.
My thought is they could disconnect your phone because they didn't like this post and there is nothing you could do. You are month-to-month. Legally what you have is a contract that you and AT&T both agree (currently) to renew each month. They can unilaterally decide not to renew that next month. They don't have to give you anything. They no longer sell unlimited data, they don't have to keep providing it to you, they are temporarily because they didn't want to lose people to Verizon. Don't expect those kindnesses to last long.
McDonald's stopped selling the McRibb, you gonna get a class action against them for not grandfathering you in?
The McRib doesn't come with a rider defining what constitutes a McRib (What DOES constitute a McRib, anyway?), but I see your point.
Well, if that's the case, I don't have any compelling reason to stay with AT&T. Good to know. Thanks.
Nice to see the US once again playing catchup. I have a T-Mobile iPhone here in the UK and I love it. They have the best coverage, the fastest 3G and best customer service in the UK.
Having frequently visited the US, if I had to put up full time with the lousy service provided by AT&T and Verizon, i'd go mad - I can't believe what a second rate cell phone network the states has.
It's really a matter of geography I think as much as anything else. I mean the UK is maybe the size of Florida? Companies here in the states have a MUCH larger landmass to service, and this makes the networks vastly more expensive to implement and maintain.
They're going to be a single network. There won't be a such thing as "AT&T's Network" or "T-Mobile's Network" ... the two are compatible with one another. This primarily gives customers access to more towers.
On the down side, AT&T's customer service and rate plans leave something to be desired. My current T-Mobile bill is probably going to double after this goes through. I'm not at all happy about it.
If you're seriously concerned about this, then I would say renew your T-Mobile contract now. That would price lock you for probably 2 years. Not a great solution, but it could be helpful.
Sprint remains the only viable unlimited data plan. Too bad they don't have coverage where I live LOL
Seriously though, isn't anyone else concerned with what's happening to mobile data?
I think Verizon buys Sprint only if the T-Mobile sale goes through - and I'm not sure it will.
Oracle won't win squat, though HTC will win their suit and force Apple to stop all sales of the iPad and iPhone (no they won't, but most of these tech suits are ridiculous and will end up with some meaningless settlements, everybody borrows somewhat from everyone else. Apple borrowed from MS and MS borrowed from Apple in their OSes). Oracle is just trying to get in on the mobile computing action and sees that Android right now looks to take over the marketplace (and already is in reality). Everybody is going to want to sue Google over the next few years because of what Google is building. Apple sued a member of the open handset alliance for the same reason, because they're scared of what Google may do down the line. Oracle wants to control Android because they see the future and this is their potential way in. Android would give Oracle a long term foot in future markets.
Anyways, I suspect the royalties to Oracle if they come will not come off the Android OS but will instead be royalties off the apps, which would change the Android marketplace.
But to the main point, I'm still not sure that the T-Mobile sale would go through especially since it would open the door for Sprint to be bought by Verizon. If the deal does get nixed I could still see Verizon expanding. Sprint will get left on its own, but VZW could buy either US Cellular, MetroPCS, or both in smaller deals that would likely get approved. If the FCC allows the T-Mobile sale then I see Verizon buying Sprint, MetroPCS, and US Cellular. That would give VZW around 160 million subscribers.
Not that I know anything really about the FCC and how these decisions are made, but I would be surprised if ATT came this far down this path without being pretty confident about it getting approval. As to Sprint, personally I would think that the FCC may allow the T-Mobile sale but this would probably kill any possibility of either ATT or Verizon buying Sprint since this really would create a duopoly.
Who really knows though... It's all political, and it will all boil down to who's hands get greased by whom.