Last week T-Mobile was promoting an "unlimited everything" plan for $79.99. (unlimited voice, data and text)
This week all of the plans have changed on their web site matching AT&T's over priced plans.
Anyone really think this deal isn't going to get rubber stamped approval?
Read the T-Mobile literature. They are just as notorious for offering promotional unlimited plans while killing them after they have you contractually up for renewal.
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.
I'm sorry but T-Mobile has the most to lose. If the majority of it's customers simply want to make phone calls, the company is doomed. It's the extras like text messaging plans and data plans that allow T-Mobile to make up for the decidedly lower-margin voice calling services. And let's also not overlook the fact that LTE is a much more efficient use of spectrum. Those carriers that implement LTE for both voice and data (AT&T / VZW) will end up with an advantage that T-Mobile simply can't match without the money and resources to deploy LTE across their network. Therefore, T-Mobile will ultimately die a slow and painful death. The data users who want the fastest and lowest latency network will go first, and they are the high-value users. Then when T-Mobile is too small and insignificant, someone will come along and gobble them up anyway. So again, what difference does it make whether AT&T gets them today or two years from now? I really don't get the feeling that DT wants to dump any more money into the joint venture, and private equity would probably destroy the company, so really, what else can T-Mobile do? The writing is already on the wall.
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.
AT&T has proven already that it can never deliver on its promises. When the second largest carrier in the US has more problems running its network than a provider who is almost half as big and runs 2 entirely incompatible networks, spectrum isn't the problem, it's management.
AT&T's acquisition of T-mobile will only increase its footprint by 1%. Most AT&T towers in NY for example are only being operated at 60% capacity, still leaving a HUGE 40% room for voice and Data.
If you truly want the US to catch up to the world, instead of focusing on technological monopolies and incompatible spectrum, you would be pushing for 100% World-technology Compatibility and more competition to drive down prices.
If the merger doesn't go though, 2 things will happen:
1. Heaven forbid that customers get to choose a carrier of their choice rather than be forced to abstain to 1.
2. The spectrum will be auctioned and AT&T can fight for it.(Competition? No flippin way.)
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.
OK, thanks for clarifying. But this rule is what I don't understand. It actually reduces competition. When you compare things globally, in a country usually a few different carriers are awarded the common global-standard spectrum by auction or something similar. Then, the carriers compete on a more equal footing because phones can/should then be unlocked and can be used with any carrier.
It also affects the infrastructure investments competing companies have to make.
If you fragment the carrier spectrums then there's a lot of difference in investments everyone has to make for infrastructure. For example, if you are using non-global standard spectrum then you have a disadvantage of (A) phone manufacturers having to tailor phones to your needs and (B) reduced access to "off-the-shelf" infrastructure tools and equipment. This increases cost for both the carrier and the consumer. Because let's face it, the US is no longer the centre of mobile telephony innovation (Android and Apple being the exception), at least in term of the hardware aspect of spectrum, towers and primary mobile infrastructure.
This is what I think the FCC should do for 4G - define the primary spectrum and standards to be used, following global standards, auction it to 3-5 carriers, and make carrier locking illegal. Tell me this doesn't increase competition.
If you truly want the US to catch up to the world, instead of focusing on technological monopolies and Incompatible spectrum, you would be pushing for 100% World-technology Compatibility and more competition to drive down prices...
Precisely!
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
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.
Unlocking the iPhone 4 has become extremely difficult in the past year or so, Apple has locked things down quite hard. The best hackers on the planet who are working on this still have trouble with the latest basebands. Why is the DOJ or FCC not regulating carriers to allow legal unlocking or ban locking to carriers altogether? Doesn't that ensure competition?
Fragmenting the spectrum and then allowing carrier locking was a major mistake. Now they're backpedalling trying to prevent mergers but it's too little too late.
Watch the new hires at AT&T in the next six months. Which one of the FCC commissioners will be joining AT&T as their chief lobbyist?
There was an article in the Economist or NYT, I think, describing this kind of scenario as what led to the Japanese nuclear disaster. Officials meant to oversee the industry end up being hired to run the industry and vice versa. This incestuousness is also interestingly called "ascent from Heaven" and "descent from Heaven" in Japan. http://www.japannuclearupdate.com/co...hy-antinuclear
I have a feeling this will be approved, because no one else has the cash to grab ATT, Deutsche Telecom no longer wants it, and chances of growing out its network are constrained by the lack of spectrum in the US.
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.
When you are in Germany, just go to any Apple, T-Mobile, or Vodafone store and buy an unlocked iPhone. Yes, you can do it here. Yes, you pay the full price. But you can then use it in any country with any SIM.
When you are in Germany, just go to any Apple, T-Mobile, or Vodafone store and buy an unlocked iPhone. Yes, you can do it here. Yes, you pay the full price. But you can then use it in any country with any SIM.
Yes, of course you are right. But when you have an iPhone that has been unlocked by Apple, you can always have the latest versions of iOS as soon as they come out, and you phone stays unlocked. And if you then sell your old iPhone, you don't really pay that much, or?
Comments
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.
Of course not.
Last week T-Mobile was promoting an "unlimited everything" plan for $79.99. (unlimited voice, data and text)
This week all of the plans have changed on their web site matching AT&T's over priced plans.
Anyone really think this deal isn't going to get rubber stamped approval?
Read the T-Mobile literature. They are just as notorious for offering promotional unlimited plans while killing them after they have you contractually up for renewal.
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.I'm sorry but T-Mobile has the most to lose. If the majority of it's customers simply want to make phone calls, the company is doomed. It's the extras like text messaging plans and data plans that allow T-Mobile to make up for the decidedly lower-margin voice calling services. And let's also not overlook the fact that LTE is a much more efficient use of spectrum. Those carriers that implement LTE for both voice and data (AT&T / VZW) will end up with an advantage that T-Mobile simply can't match without the money and resources to deploy LTE across their network. Therefore, T-Mobile will ultimately die a slow and painful death. The data users who want the fastest and lowest latency network will go first, and they are the high-value users. Then when T-Mobile is too small and insignificant, someone will come along and gobble them up anyway. So again, what difference does it make whether AT&T gets them today or two years from now? I really don't get the feeling that DT wants to dump any more money into the joint venture, and private equity would probably destroy the company, so really, what else can T-Mobile do? The writing is already on the wall.
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.
AT&T has proven already that it can never deliver on its promises. When the second largest carrier in the US has more problems running its network than a provider who is almost half as big and runs 2 entirely incompatible networks, spectrum isn't the problem, it's management.
AT&T's acquisition of T-mobile will only increase its footprint by 1%. Most AT&T towers in NY for example are only being operated at 60% capacity, still leaving a HUGE 40% room for voice and Data.
If you truly want the US to catch up to the world, instead of focusing on technological monopolies and incompatible spectrum, you would be pushing for 100% World-technology Compatibility and more competition to drive down prices.
If the merger doesn't go though, 2 things will happen:
1. Heaven forbid that customers get to choose a carrier of their choice rather than be forced to abstain to 1.
2. The spectrum will be auctioned and AT&T can fight for it.(Competition? No flippin way.)
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.
OK, thanks for clarifying. But this rule is what I don't understand. It actually reduces competition. When you compare things globally, in a country usually a few different carriers are awarded the common global-standard spectrum by auction or something similar. Then, the carriers compete on a more equal footing because phones can/should then be unlocked and can be used with any carrier.
It also affects the infrastructure investments competing companies have to make.
If you fragment the carrier spectrums then there's a lot of difference in investments everyone has to make for infrastructure. For example, if you are using non-global standard spectrum then you have a disadvantage of (A) phone manufacturers having to tailor phones to your needs and (B) reduced access to "off-the-shelf" infrastructure tools and equipment. This increases cost for both the carrier and the consumer. Because let's face it, the US is no longer the centre of mobile telephony innovation (Android and Apple being the exception), at least in term of the hardware aspect of spectrum, towers and primary mobile infrastructure.
This is what I think the FCC should do for 4G - define the primary spectrum and standards to be used, following global standards, auction it to 3-5 carriers, and make carrier locking illegal. Tell me this doesn't increase competition.
If you truly want the US to catch up to the world, instead of focusing on technological monopolies and Incompatible spectrum, you would be pushing for 100% World-technology Compatibility and more competition to drive down prices...
Precisely!
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.
Unlocking the iPhone 4 has become extremely difficult in the past year or so, Apple has locked things down quite hard. The best hackers on the planet who are working on this still have trouble with the latest basebands. Why is the DOJ or FCC not regulating carriers to allow legal unlocking or ban locking to carriers altogether? Doesn't that ensure competition?
Fragmenting the spectrum and then allowing carrier locking was a major mistake. Now they're backpedalling trying to prevent mergers but it's too little too late.
Watch the new hires at AT&T in the next six months. Which one of the FCC commissioners will be joining AT&T as their chief lobbyist?
There was an article in the Economist or NYT, I think, describing this kind of scenario as what led to the Japanese nuclear disaster. Officials meant to oversee the industry end up being hired to run the industry and vice versa. This incestuousness is also interestingly called "ascent from Heaven" and "descent from Heaven" in Japan. http://www.japannuclearupdate.com/co...hy-antinuclear
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.
When you are in Germany, just go to any Apple, T-Mobile, or Vodafone store and buy an unlocked iPhone. Yes, you can do it here. Yes, you pay the full price. But you can then use it in any country with any SIM.
When you are in Germany, just go to any Apple, T-Mobile, or Vodafone store and buy an unlocked iPhone. Yes, you can do it here. Yes, you pay the full price. But you can then use it in any country with any SIM.
Or he could do it for FREE himself.
Or he could do it for FREE himself.
Yes, of course you are right. But when you have an iPhone that has been unlocked by Apple, you can always have the latest versions of iOS as soon as they come out, and you phone stays unlocked. And if you then sell your old iPhone, you don't really pay that much, or?