The question is: after the merger, will T-Mobile be able to continue offering those prepaid packages or will they have to switch to offering only the packages ATT offers?
T-Mobile will stop EXISTING after the merger. It will be AT&T's plans only.
There?s a reason Sprint is hemorrhaging customers....they know it, ?we? know it, and that?s why AT&T and Verizon are only growing.
I had Sprint when they first rolled out in the Los Angeles area circa 1998, then switched to Airtouch (now Verizon) about a year later. They were the only carrier who you could sign with 100% contract free and gave you the first incoming minute free. Those were the days?.
Several years ago, I decided to switch to Sprint from T-Mobile. Roughly a week later, I cancelled the service and stayed with T-Mobile. Why? a) Customer service was 100% overseas and highly undertrained b) Cell reception was not any better. c) I received a HUGE prorated bill within 5 day of my activation, demanding payment within 14 days. (We have a 30 day buyers remorse period in California)
The bill within 5 days of activation was enough to prompt a call to customer service. Each person I was transferred to was overseas, was completely scripted, had no idea how to look at my bill and kept transferring me until finally the last person was in Canada. T-Mobile was 100% U.S. based customer service at the time and the prices were approximately the same except I got a discount on Sprint through my job that would have made it cheaper.
Years later, I?ve been with AT&T for about three years and have had?. a) 100% U.S. based customer service. b) Less-expensive phone bill (mainly due to rollover min). c) Relatively few issues with billing (mostly data related), and all were cleared up on the first phone call with the first person I spoke with. My wife had Verizon and their coverage was excellent but their billing department was retarded. Tell me?. how can you be billed for domestic roaming when you?re on a ?free roaming? plan?! Yeah, that took a 45min phone call and a supervisor to fix.
That said, I have absolutely no reason to switch from AT&T unless there is some compelling or lucrative reason to do so. T-Mobile had the best customer service of any carrier I?ve had, period?Sprint had the worst.
The question is: after the merger, will T-Mobile be able to continue offering those prepaid packages or will they have to switch to offering only the packages ATT offers?
AT&T,WILL phase out T-mobile's plans because they are too good of a deal compared to theirs; After all, their already going to force you to upgrade if 3G is something you would like to have in about 2 years.
That was exactly the point I was making. If there are other options, by definition there isn't a monopoly.
Have a great day,
Dim
Technically-speaking, it's only an oligopoly right now....Sprint, AT&T, and Verizon are all telcos that offer wireless; T-Mobile is only a wireless-only carrier (MVNOs aside).
You'd only have a true duopoly if Sprint (telco + wireless spectrum) was bought by Verizon, or Verizon was bought by AT&T, thereby having only two major telcos in the U.S.
...Make no mistake this creates a monopoly on the GSM network. It harms customers because people owning phones tied to the GSM network will only have one option. The bedrock principle of choice is for a customer to be able to freely walk. That will not be easy for customers if the sale goes through...
The vast majority doesn't know, let alone care about, what wireless technology their phone uses. They might care about if it's 3G, 4G, or 17G (not that they know what any of that actually means), but GSM, CDMA, HSPA+, LTE, WIMAX, all mean precisely nothing to the general public.
Your argument is kinda like saying "Chrysler has an unfair monopoly because if you want a truck with a Hemi engine, you have to buy a Chrysler product." you can buy a truck from Ford, Chevrolet, Toyota, Honda, etc. but the only way to get a Hemi (or in out case GSM phone) is to go to Chrysler (AT&T).
Besides all this is moot in 12-18 months when virtually all the carriers go to LTE.
Actually, I think sprint is hoping to grab Tmobile once the LTE switches are completed. And that would probably be better for consumers in the long run than AT&T buying Tmo now. But that all depends on Tmo still surviving as an independent company that long. If Tmo US's parent company decides to cut them loose who is gonna be able to operate them now?
Further, as an innovative startup who wants to go head to head with the likes of AT&T or Verizon, it would be impossible because nobody but a huge company can afford the licensing fees or maneuver the process to obtain such licenses.
Where I live, we have two monopolies in the form of DSL and Cable. Comcast is the only cable company the city allows. AT&T is the only DSL provider. So, you have government sanctioned monopolies. Comcast is a monopoly because it is the only cable provider. AT&T is one because it is the only DSl provider.
I can tell you AT&T stinks and we don't want them to have more power. AT&T ruined Cingular. Soon as it took over, all the plans went up in price. In my area, it recently advertised $19.99 high speed internet. It was advertised on the radio, TV, and its website. I went to the website and initiated the process to sign up. It checked my address and said the deal was available in my area. It gave me an order number, and a man came to my house to set it up (from the outside when I wasn't there). The Internet never went on though. I called AT&T and after a few hours on the phone with different clueless people, AT&T informed me it canceled the service (without telling me) because it wasn't available in my area.
Several AT&T managers went to the website as I requested and versified the deal was being advertised in my area, but told me they couldn't honor the deal. I explained that by canceling the service AT&T violated its contract with me. It offered the service at that price for a year, and I accepted the offer. By canceling the service, it breached the contract. For three weeks I was transferred from one person to another. Each person saying they'd be able to resolve the issue. I ended up complaining to the attorney general's office. Finally, I got through to the corporate legal affairs office where the issue was resolved two months later after I explained to one of AT&T's lawyers either AT&T could give me my Internet for the advertised price, provide me credit for the first several months of bills for my time, or deal with my class action lawsuit. It caved.
AT&T hates it customers. The only thing that keeps it somewhat honest is competition, which it can't stand. In Wisconsin, public universities have collectively created a bidding system to get the best price on broadband Internet. The universities collectively pay about two million a year. AT&T hates this system because it can't compete, so it has lobbied for its Republican buddies to do away with the Universities ability to ban together to get better prices. The result will be the Universities will have to go to AT&T for broadband services to the tune of about 18 million a year, and receive less in services in the bargain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik
That is a very nice concrete example. The other reason this is a monopoly / duopoly is because no credible new entrant could be formed (because spectrum was stupidly sold directly to the monopolists). People who study this in depth (i.e. industrial organization economics) will realize that kind of auction was destined to create and reinforce permanent monopoly companies. How could ATT / Verizon go bankrupt at this point? They would last 350 years now. This market was never supposed to be so exclusive.
It's the same with large predatory airlines these days. In many cities there are only 1-2 airlines going where you need to go now. Whereas there used to be 5. When you can document real harm to customers using equations, that is when these mergers become essentially illegal. In fact, the companies could be forcibly broken up if you properly demonstrate these effects in court, or if the DOJ actually started working these issues.
Your analogy doesn't match up. Millions of people already own the phones. They aren't shopping for anything. Further, average customers might not know the difference between the technologies, but they soon will when they learn their expensive phones owned contract free can't carry over to any other carrier other then AT&T. They will be forced to sign on to more expensive AT&T plans, or trash expensive phones to be subjected to other long term contracts to pay for their new phones to replace the phones they owned contract free. As Albert Einstein said, "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimwit
The vast majority doesn't know, let alone care about, what wireless technology their phone uses. They might care about if it's 3G, 4G, or 17G (not that they know what any of that actually means), but GSM, CDMA, HSPA+, LTE, WIMAX, all mean precisely nothing to the general public.
Your argument is kinda like saying "Chrysler has an unfair monopoly because if you want a truck with a Hemi engine, you have to buy a Chrysler product." you can buy a truck from Ford, Chevrolet, Toyota, Honda, etc. but the only way to get a Hemi (or in out case GSM phone) is to go to Chrysler (AT&T).
Besides all this is moot in 12-18 months when virtually all the carriers go to LTE.
Actually, I think sprint is hoping to grab Tmobile once the LTE switches are completed. And that would probably be better for consumers in the long run than AT&T buying Tmo now. But that all depends on Tmo still surviving as an independent company that long. If Tmo US's parent company decides to cut them loose who is gonna be able to operate them now?
OK, I usually don't like government sticking their nose where it doesn't freakin belong (like it always does), however... I will have to play the hypocrite and say that I hope to God the FTC actually does get this industry killing merger blocked. T-Mobile was the only cellphone company that believed in fair prices and the openness in the Android operating system. T-Mobile phones remain as some of the best and un-dicked with mobile phones in the industry. Also T-mobile was one of the first major cellphone companies to drop contract requirements for a regular plan. If ATT is allowed to buy out tmobile ALL of this will get tossed out the window!
I used to have a 900 min nationwide anytime (no night and weeekends) for 39.99 mo with ATT
Its simply not possible to get that any more , it has doubled.
End of story and discussion rates have gone up
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer
hmm, I got my first cell in 2004 and paid like $30 for 500 minutes, I now pay $39 for the 450 minutes on ATT as part of my plan on my iphone 4 so while one case is anecdotal, it seems to me that you may not be correct.
I'm just stating for a fact I bought a Motorola RAZR in 2004 for about $100 with rebate and I got the nationwide plan 900 minutes for $39.99 that, that was a special offer which allowed me to exchange night and weekend for nationwide calling 900 anytime minutes. With night and weekend 5000 mins deal the anytime minutes was reduced to 450min. The only downer was that I could not travel and get the calls on the anytime portion, I had to pay roaming if calls were made from outside mu home calling area.
It served me well because I didn't do much calling at weekend or night . I used it for business mostly and I wanted as many day time minutes as I could get a good price. I think ATT did a similar deal too back then
My bill every month was about $47 with all the fees and taxes. sometimes I went over and it went up correspondingly.
The point is I don't think it is anywhere possible to get those rates , certainly not at ATT or Verizon any longer. Maybe T-Mobile or Sprint. IF sprint or Tmobile gets swallowed up kiss those deal goodbye.
In 2006 I bougth an iPhone and though I loved it I was paying about $90 per month and that was for only 450 mins , I used it mainly for the map features and the unlimited data plan. I no longer use a smart phone, its just too expensive. now I use a cheap dumb phone and buy minutes and pay $100 ever 5 months to fill it up with 1000 minutes.
I don't miss the iPhone at all, in fact not being connected makes me happier and more in control of my life. now that is what I call smart.
so having a dumb phone is really smart !
x
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul94544
I used to have a 900 min nationwide anytime (no night and weeekends) for 39.99 mo with ATT
Its simply not possible to get that any more , it has doubled.
We need a way for Corporations to "duke it out" and settle their differences.
I mean, since the Supreme Court said; "Money is Speech" -- those with more money get to speak louder. Making this a "free speech issue" sounds so much better than; "We are officially a bunch of fascists now."
The "U.S. Chamber of Commerce" is a group of multinationals, who manipulate campaigns, hire lawyers and detectives to ruin any politician or talk show host who stands in their way, and generally doesn't get in the way of anyone who is a paid member.
>> But what, does another large, multinational corporation do, in this perfect Fascist World, if it doesn't want to roll over and lose market to another multinational who already bought enough Senators and Judges?
Let me suggest that we have a televised sporting event, and that teams from Sprint and AT&T can go into battle to decide who "wins T-Mobile." It's fair, because they can each have the chance to bid for the most ruthless players. Add in motorcycles, ice hockey, and a heavy steel ball that can rip a head off. No rules!
Think of the entertainment!
So, instead of a costly and "progress reducing" time in Court, let's just go ahead and admit that this day and age requires we settle this with RollerBall!
Only a few years ago, a big Corporation like Sprint and AT&T merely had to make sure they put enough money into a campaign to make sure that their "representatives" or Judges were "Business friendly."
Now that 90% of people in power are "Business Friendly" we are about to have a bidding war -- because they can't get any more Friendly. A prostitute, for instance, can only sleep with one client at a time unless Sprint is really kinky.
What Sprint wants, is for sold out members in our Government, to "unfavor" AT&T after AT&T spent good, hard-stolen money to put candidates in office.
This is really going to get messy, and Judges and regulators are going to have to find NEW AND CREATIVE ways to get the kick-backs and funnel the Billions of Dollars in bribes they are going to receive.
Either that, or, "ALL" regulators and politicians, are required to "rubber stamp" and we expand the G8 summit to make all the important decisions, so that some Star Chamber can decide whether AT&T or Spring wins.
>> OK, well, I suppose Sprint is merely saying; "WE are going to send out our pimps, and make all the decision makers are even happier than before." Really, at some point, there are only so many prostitutes and so many dollars you can cram down the throats of these authorities, and eventually, they get a permanent smirk and glassy eyed look -- you know, like you see on William Krystol's face.
Comments
The question is: after the merger, will T-Mobile be able to continue offering those prepaid packages or will they have to switch to offering only the packages ATT offers?
T-Mobile will stop EXISTING after the merger. It will be AT&T's plans only.
I had Sprint when they first rolled out in the Los Angeles area circa 1998, then switched to Airtouch (now Verizon) about a year later. They were the only carrier who you could sign with 100% contract free and gave you the first incoming minute free. Those were the days?.
Several years ago, I decided to switch to Sprint from T-Mobile. Roughly a week later, I cancelled the service and stayed with T-Mobile. Why? a) Customer service was 100% overseas and highly undertrained b) Cell reception was not any better. c) I received a HUGE prorated bill within 5 day of my activation, demanding payment within 14 days. (We have a 30 day buyers remorse period in California)
The bill within 5 days of activation was enough to prompt a call to customer service. Each person I was transferred to was overseas, was completely scripted, had no idea how to look at my bill and kept transferring me until finally the last person was in Canada. T-Mobile was 100% U.S. based customer service at the time and the prices were approximately the same except I got a discount on Sprint through my job that would have made it cheaper.
Years later, I?ve been with AT&T for about three years and have had?. a) 100% U.S. based customer service. b) Less-expensive phone bill (mainly due to rollover min). c) Relatively few issues with billing (mostly data related), and all were cleared up on the first phone call with the first person I spoke with. My wife had Verizon and their coverage was excellent but their billing department was retarded. Tell me?. how can you be billed for domestic roaming when you?re on a ?free roaming? plan?! Yeah, that took a 45min phone call and a supervisor to fix.
That said, I have absolutely no reason to switch from AT&T unless there is some compelling or lucrative reason to do so. T-Mobile had the best customer service of any carrier I?ve had, period?Sprint had the worst.
The question is: after the merger, will T-Mobile be able to continue offering those prepaid packages or will they have to switch to offering only the packages ATT offers?
AT&T,WILL phase out T-mobile's plans because they are too good of a deal compared to theirs; After all, their already going to force you to upgrade if 3G is something you would like to have in about 2 years.
That was exactly the point I was making. If there are other options, by definition there isn't a monopoly.
Have a great day,
Dim
Technically-speaking, it's only an oligopoly right now....Sprint, AT&T, and Verizon are all telcos that offer wireless; T-Mobile is only a wireless-only carrier (MVNOs aside).
You'd only have a true duopoly if Sprint (telco + wireless spectrum) was bought by Verizon, or Verizon was bought by AT&T, thereby having only two major telcos in the U.S.
...Make no mistake this creates a monopoly on the GSM network. It harms customers because people owning phones tied to the GSM network will only have one option. The bedrock principle of choice is for a customer to be able to freely walk. That will not be easy for customers if the sale goes through...
The vast majority doesn't know, let alone care about, what wireless technology their phone uses. They might care about if it's 3G, 4G, or 17G (not that they know what any of that actually means), but GSM, CDMA, HSPA+, LTE, WIMAX, all mean precisely nothing to the general public.
Your argument is kinda like saying "Chrysler has an unfair monopoly because if you want a truck with a Hemi engine, you have to buy a Chrysler product." you can buy a truck from Ford, Chevrolet, Toyota, Honda, etc. but the only way to get a Hemi (or in out case GSM phone) is to go to Chrysler (AT&T).
Besides all this is moot in 12-18 months when virtually all the carriers go to LTE.
Actually, I think sprint is hoping to grab Tmobile once the LTE switches are completed. And that would probably be better for consumers in the long run than AT&T buying Tmo now. But that all depends on Tmo still surviving as an independent company that long. If Tmo US's parent company decides to cut them loose who is gonna be able to operate them now?
Dim
Where I live, we have two monopolies in the form of DSL and Cable. Comcast is the only cable company the city allows. AT&T is the only DSL provider. So, you have government sanctioned monopolies. Comcast is a monopoly because it is the only cable provider. AT&T is one because it is the only DSl provider.
I can tell you AT&T stinks and we don't want them to have more power. AT&T ruined Cingular. Soon as it took over, all the plans went up in price. In my area, it recently advertised $19.99 high speed internet. It was advertised on the radio, TV, and its website. I went to the website and initiated the process to sign up. It checked my address and said the deal was available in my area. It gave me an order number, and a man came to my house to set it up (from the outside when I wasn't there). The Internet never went on though. I called AT&T and after a few hours on the phone with different clueless people, AT&T informed me it canceled the service (without telling me) because it wasn't available in my area.
Several AT&T managers went to the website as I requested and versified the deal was being advertised in my area, but told me they couldn't honor the deal. I explained that by canceling the service AT&T violated its contract with me. It offered the service at that price for a year, and I accepted the offer. By canceling the service, it breached the contract. For three weeks I was transferred from one person to another. Each person saying they'd be able to resolve the issue. I ended up complaining to the attorney general's office. Finally, I got through to the corporate legal affairs office where the issue was resolved two months later after I explained to one of AT&T's lawyers either AT&T could give me my Internet for the advertised price, provide me credit for the first several months of bills for my time, or deal with my class action lawsuit. It caved.
AT&T hates it customers. The only thing that keeps it somewhat honest is competition, which it can't stand. In Wisconsin, public universities have collectively created a bidding system to get the best price on broadband Internet. The universities collectively pay about two million a year. AT&T hates this system because it can't compete, so it has lobbied for its Republican buddies to do away with the Universities ability to ban together to get better prices. The result will be the Universities will have to go to AT&T for broadband services to the tune of about 18 million a year, and receive less in services in the bargain.
That is a very nice concrete example. The other reason this is a monopoly / duopoly is because no credible new entrant could be formed (because spectrum was stupidly sold directly to the monopolists). People who study this in depth (i.e. industrial organization economics) will realize that kind of auction was destined to create and reinforce permanent monopoly companies. How could ATT / Verizon go bankrupt at this point? They would last 350 years now. This market was never supposed to be so exclusive.
It's the same with large predatory airlines these days. In many cities there are only 1-2 airlines going where you need to go now. Whereas there used to be 5. When you can document real harm to customers using equations, that is when these mergers become essentially illegal. In fact, the companies could be forcibly broken up if you properly demonstrate these effects in court, or if the DOJ actually started working these issues.
The vast majority doesn't know, let alone care about, what wireless technology their phone uses. They might care about if it's 3G, 4G, or 17G (not that they know what any of that actually means), but GSM, CDMA, HSPA+, LTE, WIMAX, all mean precisely nothing to the general public.
Your argument is kinda like saying "Chrysler has an unfair monopoly because if you want a truck with a Hemi engine, you have to buy a Chrysler product." you can buy a truck from Ford, Chevrolet, Toyota, Honda, etc. but the only way to get a Hemi (or in out case GSM phone) is to go to Chrysler (AT&T).
Besides all this is moot in 12-18 months when virtually all the carriers go to LTE.
Actually, I think sprint is hoping to grab Tmobile once the LTE switches are completed. And that would probably be better for consumers in the long run than AT&T buying Tmo now. But that all depends on Tmo still surviving as an independent company that long. If Tmo US's parent company decides to cut them loose who is gonna be able to operate them now?
Dim
Its simply not possible to get that any more , it has doubled.
End of story and discussion rates have gone up
hmm, I got my first cell in 2004 and paid like $30 for 500 minutes, I now pay $39 for the 450 minutes on ATT as part of my plan on my iphone 4 so while one case is anecdotal, it seems to me that you may not be correct.
It served me well because I didn't do much calling at weekend or night . I used it for business mostly and I wanted as many day time minutes as I could get a good price. I think ATT did a similar deal too back then
My bill every month was about $47 with all the fees and taxes. sometimes I went over and it went up correspondingly.
The point is I don't think it is anywhere possible to get those rates , certainly not at ATT or Verizon any longer. Maybe T-Mobile or Sprint. IF sprint or Tmobile gets swallowed up kiss those deal goodbye.
In 2006 I bougth an iPhone and though I loved it I was paying about $90 per month and that was for only 450 mins , I used it mainly for the map features and the unlimited data plan. I no longer use a smart phone, its just too expensive. now I use a cheap dumb phone and buy minutes and pay $100 ever 5 months to fill it up with 1000 minutes.
I don't miss the iPhone at all, in fact not being connected makes me happier and more in control of my life. now that is what I call smart.
so having a dumb phone is really smart !
x
I used to have a 900 min nationwide anytime (no night and weeekends) for 39.99 mo with ATT
Its simply not possible to get that any more , it has doubled.
End of story and discussion rates have gone up
I mean, since the Supreme Court said; "Money is Speech" -- those with more money get to speak louder. Making this a "free speech issue" sounds so much better than; "We are officially a bunch of fascists now."
The "U.S. Chamber of Commerce" is a group of multinationals, who manipulate campaigns, hire lawyers and detectives to ruin any politician or talk show host who stands in their way, and generally doesn't get in the way of anyone who is a paid member.
>> But what, does another large, multinational corporation do, in this perfect Fascist World, if it doesn't want to roll over and lose market to another multinational who already bought enough Senators and Judges?
Let me suggest that we have a televised sporting event, and that teams from Sprint and AT&T can go into battle to decide who "wins T-Mobile." It's fair, because they can each have the chance to bid for the most ruthless players. Add in motorcycles, ice hockey, and a heavy steel ball that can rip a head off. No rules!
Think of the entertainment!
So, instead of a costly and "progress reducing" time in Court, let's just go ahead and admit that this day and age requires we settle this with RollerBall!
Now that 90% of people in power are "Business Friendly" we are about to have a bidding war -- because they can't get any more Friendly. A prostitute, for instance, can only sleep with one client at a time unless Sprint is really kinky.
What Sprint wants, is for sold out members in our Government, to "unfavor" AT&T after AT&T spent good, hard-stolen money to put candidates in office.
This is really going to get messy, and Judges and regulators are going to have to find NEW AND CREATIVE ways to get the kick-backs and funnel the Billions of Dollars in bribes they are going to receive.
Either that, or, "ALL" regulators and politicians, are required to "rubber stamp" and we expand the G8 summit to make all the important decisions, so that some Star Chamber can decide whether AT&T or Spring wins.
>> OK, well, I suppose Sprint is merely saying; "WE are going to send out our pimps, and make all the decision makers are even happier than before." Really, at some point, there are only so many prostitutes and so many dollars you can cram down the throats of these authorities, and eventually, they get a permanent smirk and glassy eyed look -- you know, like you see on William Krystol's face.