That is true. However, you are operating under the premise that the supply can't meet the demand. I doubt that is true. Verizon doesn't seem to be suffering any problems with its current unlimited plans. It just wants to make more money.
Maybe I am a cynic, but I think the companies are just greedy. That is why companies like Comcast and AT&T are putting caps on their traditional broadband. People are starting to ditch services like cable TV and U-Verse and using services like Hulu-Plus and Netflix.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turley Muller
Yeah unlimited data plans aren't any big deal for carriers when only 5-10% of their customers have smartphones but when 30,40, 50% of them do they have to ration. Spectrum is a finite resource and when supply can't expand to meet demand, price has to increase to ration supply.
There is an excuse. The government hasn't freed up enough spectrum and when spectrum does become available it's a long a process to acquire.
It typically takes several years to bring a new cell site into service. Tons of red tape to acquire property rights, permits, fcc approval etc. Demand is drastically out stripping supply due to smartphone adoption and additional capacity takes way too long to deploy
That is true. However, you are operating under the premise that the supply can't meet the demand. I doubt that is true. Verizon doesn't seem to be suffering any problems with its current unlimited plans. It just wants to make more money.
Maybe I am a cynic, but I think the companies are just greedy. That is why companies like Comcast and AT&T are putting caps on their traditional broadband. People are starting to ditch services like cable TV and U-Verse and using services like Hulu-Plus and Netflix.
Verizon has had the least problems mainly because they only operate one network (excluding LTE) CDMA. AT&T has it resources between between 2G GSM and W-CDMA.
Comcast doesn't employ caps to make more money but rather to try to stave off making less money. Cable and wireless companies need to generate a set amount of revenue to recover the massive costs of building and maintaining networks.
I'm still convinced that everyone's main concern is because of the amount of control AT&T would have over GSM, which won't be a factor in 4G [...] So maybe make sure an adequate amount of LTE is available/operational or that AT&T has deployment dates they have to meet to ensure the market remains competitive before approving the merger.
No, most people's main concern is that, with almost no real competition in the wireless market now, fewer carriers just makes a bad (for consumers) situation worse. If the FCC approves this acquisition, they'll have no choice but to approve what will be an inevitable Verizon acquisition of Sprint, leaving us with even less chance for any real competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
Dumb question, why wasn't T-mobile compatible with AT&T spectrum, etc. in the first place? ...
Because wireless carriers in this country have gone out of their way to be incompatible with each other to reduce actual competition by locking in customers via technology, as well as by contract. The less they have to compete on price, the more profitable it is for all of them, and they understand that very well.
There is an excuse. The government hasn't freed up enough spectrum and when spectrum does become available it's a long a process to acquire.
It typically takes several years to bring a new cell site into service. Tons of red tape to acquire property rights, permits, fcc approval etc. Demand is drastically out stripping supply due to smartphone adoption and additional capacity takes way too long to deploy
Again, there is absolutely no excuse for this. What happened to the 700MHz band we just freed up?
Why can't we just better utilize the existing bandwidth?
... Comcast doesn't employ caps to make more money but rather to try to stave off making less money. Cable and wireless companies need to generate a set amount of revenue to recover the massive costs of building and maintaining networks.
Cable and wireless companies are making money hand over fist, and have absolutely no trouble recovering the proportionally not so massive costs of building and maintaining networks that are substandard compared to many foreign service providers.
Bandwidth caps are a way to gut network neutrality by making it more expensive to utilize services like Netflix, while pushing their own "on demand" services, which operate over the same network, as part of television, not network services, exempt from bandwidth caps. It's simply a way for carriers to gain an unfair advantage in selling services, not by throttling the service providers' traffic, but by forcing customers to "self-throttle" access to those services.
What ever happened to the evil Ma Bell. We had to disassemble her because she was throttling competition. It is Ma Bell all over again in duplicate. We never learn, do we?
You have got that right. I have reminded the FCC about the breakup of AT&T.
You said that their plans are now matched with AT&T, which isn't true at all.
As for unlimited data, it still is unlimited data if you don't mind the slow speed. The fine print says, "Unlimited data: 2 GB of high-speed data, then reduced speeds after that. If you use up your high-speed data, we will automatically reduce your speeds for the rest of your billing cycle. That means you are always connected and will never have to worry about overages."
Quote:
Originally Posted by OriginalMacRat
Unless you're not looking at their plans page which now lists the $79.99 as "unlimited voice" instead of "unlimited everything" as it was last week.
The difference is there are a lot of people that use their phones to make phone calls and could give a crap about 4G or even 3G data service. These people like T-Mobile because they have lower rates in general, and these rates will simply not stay that way once AT&T takes over.
There are also people who like T-Mobile because they are not AT&T.
If we want to see if this merger is a good idea, look no further than user reaction:
Current AT&T subscribers don't care if it goes through or not.
T-Mobile subscribers generally DON'T want it to go through.
Consumer watchdog groups don't want it to go through.
There is nothing really to gain for anyone in this deal except executives of the two companies. Everyone else loses in some way.
Speak for yourself How in anyway possible do you suppose your comments speak to anyone's concerns but your own? I am an AT&T customer and and a technologist and I (and my associates) would very much like to see this merger go through because it would mean better coverage and service for customers of both companies in the long run. As far as those wanting only voice service? Get with reality: very soon there will be no voice channels; Only data. All networks are changing over to VOIP and a complete transition to LTE will necessitate it. If Sprint gets swallowed up in the process, all the better for their and Verizon's customers as well. As history has shown, prices will go up regardless as price is driven by demand.
The only thing blocking this deal will serve is to slow transition to better technology to a crawl and keep the US in last place in cellular service.
Yeah unlimited data plans aren't any big deal for carriers when only 5-10% of their customers have smartphones but when 30,40, 50% of them do they have to ration. Spectrum is a finite resource and when supply can't expand to meet demand, price has to increase to ration supply.
Spectrum is not scarce; utilization is just ineffective. Telcos want to minimize tower locations, and do not encourage pico- and micro-cell deployment within buildings and high use areas. They will sell you a femtocell (branded by AT&T as microcell), but it has about 20% of the functionality, and uses your own uplink.
Airports are a great example of the mess they have created. Dropped calls in an airport?! No data!!
Most of the areas with bad service or inadequate speeds are a function of inadequate backbones and not enough towers. Being able to do more with fewer towers is nice, but it isn't realistic with mobile data growth.
They simply aren't reinvesting profits in infrastructure to support higher data thresholds.
It's not as easy as you think. I for one would NOT want a cell tower anywhere near my backyard... I'm sure millions of other people feel the same way. Because of this, phone companies must use what they already have. What I'd like to see is EACH cell tower that is in existence should be required to accommodate ALL phone companies. For example: The tower along the freeway should have antennas from Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile on them. Why the heck do we have three freaking cell towers in one place? Why not just combine them into one tower? The government needs to get involved in making cell tower sharing a requirement so that we don't have to have 4 towers for 4 different companies all in one freaking place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh
Spectrum is not scarce; utilization is just ineffective. Telcos want to minimize tower locations, and do not encourage pico- and micro-cell deployment within buildings and high use areas. They will sell you a femtocell (branded by AT&T as microcell), but it has about 20% of the functionality, and uses your own uplink.
Airports are a great example of the mess they have created. Dropped calls in an airport?! No data!!
Most of the areas with bad service or inadequate speeds are a function of inadequate backbones and not enough towers. Being able to do more with fewer towers is nice, but it isn't realistic with mobile data growth.
They simply aren't reinvesting profits in infrastructure to support higher data thresholds.
Oh, it'll be approved after a lot of hand-waving and histrionics from gutless politicians. They serve their corporate masters and lobbyists well.
They are just doing the histrionics to make voters think they care about the voters, when in reality they are corporate puppets collecting lots of dirty money. Nothing will stop the deal, and T-Mobile will be gutted afterwards.
If the government lets this through, it has to make ATT and Verizon open up their networks to competitors. Let Sprint piggy back on the merger's network. Otherwise I dont see how this is good for anyone.
Oh, it'll be approved after a lot of hand-waving and histrionics from gutless politicians. They serve their corporate masters and lobbyists well.
They have to look like they are doing their job. As long as AT&T chants the magical incantation "No, senator, eliminating a wireless carrier and creating the biggest mobile carrier in the U.S. actually increases competition. Yes, I know it's hard to believe, but our lawyers have checked into this, and they say it's OK" then they'll be fine.
Any consumer who wants this thing to go through is incredibly short sighted. Yes, in the short run, poor ATT customers will see more bars, and fewer dropped calls because of T-Mobile's 2G network. (But they won't see much improvement in data service, because T-Mobile's 3G network uses 1700Mhz AWS spectrum, which is not supported by most phones designed to work on ATT 3G. There may be some exceptions, with penta-band Nokias, but who uses those?)
I'm from Canada, we have big 3 telecoms that act as 1. The government recently tried to open the market to 3 more companies by selling them some 1700Mhz spectrum exclusively, they have been on the market for over a year now, and failed to make a dent.
Long run is not so rosy. A market with 3 players is obviously less competitive than a market with 4 players. This ATT/Tmobile merger ruling would set a precedent, and open the door for Verizon to buy Sprint, and then you're all screwed. Once it's done, it's irreversible. With two huge established telecom companies, the barrier to entry for any new carrier would be impossibly huge.
ATT is obligated use everything they've got to increase shareholder value. Since you won't have a choice but to buy their service, they will charge what ever want to show profit growth. Cell service has inelastic demand, a cell phone makes life a lot easier, you're going to pay what they ask. Prepare for unfair data caps, and high prices, because with a duopoly, you won't have a choice.
Any consumer who wants this thing to go through is incredibly short sighted. Yes, in the short run, poor ATT customers will see more bars, and fewer dropped calls because of T-Mobile's 2G network. (But they won't see much improvement in data service, because T-Mobile's 3G network uses 1700Mhz AWS spectrum, which is not supported by most phones designed to work on ATT 3G. There may be some exceptions, with penta-band Nokias, but who uses those?)
I agree with your premise that reducing the number of MNOs from 4 to 3 will not be good for consumers, but there are some things to consider regarding T-Mobile USA’s ‘3G’ network.
First and foremost, I’d like to point out the iPhone 4 is penta-band. I think it was the 2nd one in production after the Nokia N8. Apple has still not used the 5th band which only seems to be widely utilized by Japan’s largest carrier, NTT docomo.
For that reason I don’t think we can discount the notion of the iPhone including the 1700MHz band either as a 5th band (or even a 6th if Apple does intend to announce a deal with Japan’s largest carrier).
Also note the iPhone 4 for Verizon uses the Qualcomm’s Gobi MDM6600 baseband chip which I believe already supports UMTS band IV should apple include the radio for it and the other UMTS bands. Unfortunately the doesn’t translate into being a viable choice for your HS*PA needs, especially when it comes to power efficiency.
Anyone in U.S. had any luck with getting AT&T to unlock an iPhone? I want to use local phone service in Germany when I travel there this Fall.
AT&T won?t do it as the laws in the US don?t make it a requirement. However, you are more than welcome to jailbreak than unlock your iPhone as you see fit.
Comments
Maybe I am a cynic, but I think the companies are just greedy. That is why companies like Comcast and AT&T are putting caps on their traditional broadband. People are starting to ditch services like cable TV and U-Verse and using services like Hulu-Plus and Netflix.
Yeah unlimited data plans aren't any big deal for carriers when only 5-10% of their customers have smartphones but when 30,40, 50% of them do they have to ration. Spectrum is a finite resource and when supply can't expand to meet demand, price has to increase to ration supply.
...when supply can't expand to meet demand...
There is absolutely no excuse for this.
There is absolutely no excuse for this.
There is an excuse. The government hasn't freed up enough spectrum and when spectrum does become available it's a long a process to acquire.
It typically takes several years to bring a new cell site into service. Tons of red tape to acquire property rights, permits, fcc approval etc. Demand is drastically out stripping supply due to smartphone adoption and additional capacity takes way too long to deploy
That is true. However, you are operating under the premise that the supply can't meet the demand. I doubt that is true. Verizon doesn't seem to be suffering any problems with its current unlimited plans. It just wants to make more money.
Maybe I am a cynic, but I think the companies are just greedy. That is why companies like Comcast and AT&T are putting caps on their traditional broadband. People are starting to ditch services like cable TV and U-Verse and using services like Hulu-Plus and Netflix.
Verizon has had the least problems mainly because they only operate one network (excluding LTE) CDMA. AT&T has it resources between between 2G GSM and W-CDMA.
Comcast doesn't employ caps to make more money but rather to try to stave off making less money. Cable and wireless companies need to generate a set amount of revenue to recover the massive costs of building and maintaining networks.
I'm still convinced that everyone's main concern is because of the amount of control AT&T would have over GSM, which won't be a factor in 4G [...] So maybe make sure an adequate amount of LTE is available/operational or that AT&T has deployment dates they have to meet to ensure the market remains competitive before approving the merger.
No, most people's main concern is that, with almost no real competition in the wireless market now, fewer carriers just makes a bad (for consumers) situation worse. If the FCC approves this acquisition, they'll have no choice but to approve what will be an inevitable Verizon acquisition of Sprint, leaving us with even less chance for any real competition.
Dumb question, why wasn't T-mobile compatible with AT&T spectrum, etc. in the first place? ...
Because wireless carriers in this country have gone out of their way to be incompatible with each other to reduce actual competition by locking in customers via technology, as well as by contract. The less they have to compete on price, the more profitable it is for all of them, and they understand that very well.
There is an excuse. The government hasn't freed up enough spectrum and when spectrum does become available it's a long a process to acquire.
It typically takes several years to bring a new cell site into service. Tons of red tape to acquire property rights, permits, fcc approval etc. Demand is drastically out stripping supply due to smartphone adoption and additional capacity takes way too long to deploy
Again, there is absolutely no excuse for this. What happened to the 700MHz band we just freed up?
Why can't we just better utilize the existing bandwidth?
... Comcast doesn't employ caps to make more money but rather to try to stave off making less money. Cable and wireless companies need to generate a set amount of revenue to recover the massive costs of building and maintaining networks.
Cable and wireless companies are making money hand over fist, and have absolutely no trouble recovering the proportionally not so massive costs of building and maintaining networks that are substandard compared to many foreign service providers.
Bandwidth caps are a way to gut network neutrality by making it more expensive to utilize services like Netflix, while pushing their own "on demand" services, which operate over the same network, as part of television, not network services, exempt from bandwidth caps. It's simply a way for carriers to gain an unfair advantage in selling services, not by throttling the service providers' traffic, but by forcing customers to "self-throttle" access to those services.
What ever happened to the evil Ma Bell. We had to disassemble her because she was throttling competition. It is Ma Bell all over again in duplicate.
You have got that right. I have reminded the FCC about the breakup of AT&T.
As for unlimited data, it still is unlimited data if you don't mind the slow speed. The fine print says, "Unlimited data: 2 GB of high-speed data, then reduced speeds after that. If you use up your high-speed data, we will automatically reduce your speeds for the rest of your billing cycle. That means you are always connected and will never have to worry about overages."
Unless you're not looking at their plans page which now lists the $79.99 as "unlimited voice" instead of "unlimited everything" as it was last week.
Now their plans are tiered data instead:
http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/plans/c...oup=individual
Talk + Text + Data (2 GB of high-speed data)
Even More? Ultd Talk + Ultd Text + Ultd Data (2 GB*) More details
compare$79.99/mo.
Talk + Text + Data (10 GB of high-speed data)
Even More? Ultd Talk + Ultd Text + Ultd Data (10 GB*) More details
compare$119.99/mo.
Talk + Text + Data (5 GB of high-speed data)
Even More? Ultd Talk + Ultd Text + Ultd Data (5 GB*) More details
compare$89.99/mo.
Talk + Text + Data (200 MB of high-speed data)
Even More? Ultd Talk + Ultd Text + Ultd Data (200 MB*) More details
compare$69.99/mo.
The difference is there are a lot of people that use their phones to make phone calls and could give a crap about 4G or even 3G data service. These people like T-Mobile because they have lower rates in general, and these rates will simply not stay that way once AT&T takes over.
There are also people who like T-Mobile because they are not AT&T.
If we want to see if this merger is a good idea, look no further than user reaction:
- Current AT&T subscribers don't care if it goes through or not.
- T-Mobile subscribers generally DON'T want it to go through.
- Consumer watchdog groups don't want it to go through.
There is nothing really to gain for anyone in this deal except executives of the two companies. Everyone else loses in some way.Speak for yourself How in anyway possible do you suppose your comments speak to anyone's concerns but your own? I am an AT&T customer and and a technologist and I (and my associates) would very much like to see this merger go through because it would mean better coverage and service for customers of both companies in the long run. As far as those wanting only voice service? Get with reality: very soon there will be no voice channels; Only data. All networks are changing over to VOIP and a complete transition to LTE will necessitate it. If Sprint gets swallowed up in the process, all the better for their and Verizon's customers as well. As history has shown, prices will go up regardless as price is driven by demand.
The only thing blocking this deal will serve is to slow transition to better technology to a crawl and keep the US in last place in cellular service.
Yeah unlimited data plans aren't any big deal for carriers when only 5-10% of their customers have smartphones but when 30,40, 50% of them do they have to ration. Spectrum is a finite resource and when supply can't expand to meet demand, price has to increase to ration supply.
Spectrum is not scarce; utilization is just ineffective. Telcos want to minimize tower locations, and do not encourage pico- and micro-cell deployment within buildings and high use areas. They will sell you a femtocell (branded by AT&T as microcell), but it has about 20% of the functionality, and uses your own uplink.
Airports are a great example of the mess they have created. Dropped calls in an airport?! No data!!
Most of the areas with bad service or inadequate speeds are a function of inadequate backbones and not enough towers. Being able to do more with fewer towers is nice, but it isn't realistic with mobile data growth.
They simply aren't reinvesting profits in infrastructure to support higher data thresholds.
Spectrum is not scarce; utilization is just ineffective. Telcos want to minimize tower locations, and do not encourage pico- and micro-cell deployment within buildings and high use areas. They will sell you a femtocell (branded by AT&T as microcell), but it has about 20% of the functionality, and uses your own uplink.
Airports are a great example of the mess they have created. Dropped calls in an airport?! No data!!
Most of the areas with bad service or inadequate speeds are a function of inadequate backbones and not enough towers. Being able to do more with fewer towers is nice, but it isn't realistic with mobile data growth.
They simply aren't reinvesting profits in infrastructure to support higher data thresholds.
Oh, it'll be approved after a lot of hand-waving and histrionics from gutless politicians. They serve their corporate masters and lobbyists well.
They are just doing the histrionics to make voters think they care about the voters, when in reality they are corporate puppets collecting lots of dirty money. Nothing will stop the deal, and T-Mobile will be gutted afterwards.
Dumb question, why wasn't T-mobile compatible with AT&T spectrum, etc. in the first place?
The FCC. Rules are that two companies can't make use of the same spectrum.
This is why when you unlock your iPhone to use T-Moblie you only get EDGE, not 3G.
Oh, it'll be approved after a lot of hand-waving and histrionics from gutless politicians. They serve their corporate masters and lobbyists well.
They have to look like they are doing their job. As long as AT&T chants the magical incantation "No, senator, eliminating a wireless carrier and creating the biggest mobile carrier in the U.S. actually increases competition. Yes, I know it's hard to believe, but our lawyers have checked into this, and they say it's OK" then they'll be fine.
I'm from Canada, we have big 3 telecoms that act as 1. The government recently tried to open the market to 3 more companies by selling them some 1700Mhz spectrum exclusively, they have been on the market for over a year now, and failed to make a dent.
Long run is not so rosy. A market with 3 players is obviously less competitive than a market with 4 players. This ATT/Tmobile merger ruling would set a precedent, and open the door for Verizon to buy Sprint, and then you're all screwed. Once it's done, it's irreversible. With two huge established telecom companies, the barrier to entry for any new carrier would be impossibly huge.
ATT is obligated use everything they've got to increase shareholder value. Since you won't have a choice but to buy their service, they will charge what ever want to show profit growth. Cell service has inelastic demand, a cell phone makes life a lot easier, you're going to pay what they ask. Prepare for unfair data caps, and high prices, because with a duopoly, you won't have a choice.
/my 2c
Any consumer who wants this thing to go through is incredibly short sighted. Yes, in the short run, poor ATT customers will see more bars, and fewer dropped calls because of T-Mobile's 2G network. (But they won't see much improvement in data service, because T-Mobile's 3G network uses 1700Mhz AWS spectrum, which is not supported by most phones designed to work on ATT 3G. There may be some exceptions, with penta-band Nokias, but who uses those?)
I agree with your premise that reducing the number of MNOs from 4 to 3 will not be good for consumers, but there are some things to consider regarding T-Mobile USA’s ‘3G’ network.
First and foremost, I’d like to point out the iPhone 4 is penta-band. I think it was the 2nd one in production after the Nokia N8. Apple has still not used the 5th band which only seems to be widely utilized by Japan’s largest carrier, NTT docomo.
For that reason I don’t think we can discount the notion of the iPhone including the 1700MHz band either as a 5th band (or even a 6th if Apple does intend to announce a deal with Japan’s largest carrier).
Also note the iPhone 4 for Verizon uses the Qualcomm’s Gobi MDM6600 baseband chip which I believe already supports UMTS band IV should apple include the radio for it and the other UMTS bands. Unfortunately the doesn’t translate into being a viable choice for your HS*PA needs, especially when it comes to power efficiency.
Anyone in U.S. had any luck with getting AT&T to unlock an iPhone? I want to use local phone service in Germany when I travel there this Fall.
AT&T won?t do it as the laws in the US don?t make it a requirement. However, you are more than welcome to jailbreak than unlock your iPhone as you see fit.