If I were a betting man, I'd bet a brand new iPhone 5 and the cost of two years of service that all hints of "unlimited" plans will be GONE on ALL carriers by 1/1/12. That's how sure I am that they're not going to be around much longer.
* nod * I would not take that bet. Am I ill for being happy that the main carriers in the U.S. will soon have the same iPhone and in 2012/2013 LTE will make them even more the same so there will be apples to apples competition (pardon the pun). They have to compete on price, packages (bundle with TV, phone, cloud services, etc), wireless service quality and customer service. Now if we can just get the consumer to not buy into the $199.00 phone that really costs them $700.00 over time, we can break the backs of these contracts. I'd take a discount on my monthly for buying the phone outright and have the freedom to tell a provider where they can stick it.
Cheers to Apple (and Google for riding along) for turning the wireless carriers into just another pipe and LTE for being a transport they can all agree on. Damn, do I hope Apple can do the same with the Cable TV business.
Except by all the people who will buy the iPhone? because a TWO YEAR OLD iPhone still sells better than any Android phone.
read his whole comment. he's talking specifically about specs and features. not sales and no idea what that patent stick comment had to do with anything.
Nope. As long as the building of the actual infrastructure is left to private companies, the infrastructure will suck and the private companies will rape the consumers to get their costs (along with ridiculously huge levels of profit) back.
You must have missed the point where I said that we'd be better off with wireless networking as a commodity. Your description isn't that of a company's behavior in a commodity market.
Quote:
History shows that with any basic infrastructure (or anything that through technological advancement *becomes* basic or necessary infrastructure), that private ownership always leaves the consumer holding the shitty end of the stick. Costs go out of control, waste is 70 to 80 percent of the costs, and all kinds of other nightmarish things.
You can certainly claim this all you want but that doesn't make it true. Cite some peer reviewed econ journal articles and I'll read them.
In my own experience I can think of a number of industries where privatization has been a good thing.
In the previous city I lived in city waste management services were privatized and costs have dropped drastically while service improved enormously. I can literally put anything out and they'll take it, because I could just pick from one of the 5 other providers in the region.
In Pittsburgh we have strong broadband competition between the cable company, fiber to the home, and 4g. Prices have been dropping and service speeds have been improving dramatically in the past three years.
Quote:
When it comes to things like providing water, electricity, roads, and wires it's always far more efficient for the government (which is the people after all) to provide it. The US power grid is another prime example of this kind of nonsense at work.
This isn't really a great analogy as wireless towers aren't really the same as water, electricity, roads, or wires. I'm already covered by towers from four major carriers, plus I'd be happy to lease out my WiFi in a commodity setting.
Quote:
Americans are conditioned by their ideology to think of government as "bad" so it will of course never happen (or at least not very soon),
Dude, government /is/ bad in America because every 4-12 years some idiot is in charge, and we generally don't get to have a vote of no confidence and get new elections.
Quote:
but there are mountains of evidence that private ownership (and the sort of "fake competition" used to justify it), in these cases is really the prime cause of most of the problems.
I'm sure that you can pick out specific instances where this is the case, but I doubt that it's something you can make such a blanket statement about.
read his whole comment. he's talking specifically about specs and features. not sales and no idea what that patent stick comment had to do with anything.
You're saying you don't think apple is going to beat the Galaxy 2 with its patent stick?
The government believes the $39 billion deal with "substantially lessen competition" in the wireless market, according to Bloomberg. The U.S. Justice Department filed the complaint in federal court on Wednesday in Washington.
Is it too much to ask that journalists actually write a complete sentence? I doubt the DOJ released a press statement with the express intent to release a fragmented statement.
its the Govnt NOT releasing enough spectrum for telecos to use
ATT wants T-mobile's spectrum
how can we have competition and improved customer support with out MORE SPECTRUM
this just allows the established few to keep prices high
gee its all data, why pay for voice, data, sms separately (ok i know the answer) and these huge etf's
we need more competition (well some solution with sms with imessage, chaton, facebook sms) but really.....
The government released plenty of spectrum and T-Mobile's parent let them go nuts when they spent > $13 Billion for a certain portion of spectrum several years back, and yes AT&T wants it.
Even a small country like The Netherlands, with a faction of the US population, offers a 10 Euro per week unlimited internet package, and that's for prepaid customers!! I mean COME ON?!
read his whole comment. he's talking specifically about specs and features. not sales and no idea what that patent stick comment had to do with anything.
Hate it or not the Galaxy S2 is a nice phone.
Exactly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
And I'm talking specifically that those don't matter at all. People couldn't care less.
They want a user experience. Which is what Apple gives them.
While I'll agree that specs can be and often are oversold, it does not appear that you have experience with any other OS besides IOS.
The next year is going to be very interesting across the board.
And I'm talking specifically that those don't matter at all. People couldn't care less.
They want a user experience. Which is what Apple gives them.
and there is a UX Android and more specifically Samsung gives you. is it as fluid as iOS? no but to many people it offers more. he obviously has this mystical ability to appreciate both OSes and can thus judge on specs and features.
AT&T does't have to show any of that. All it has to do is show how it 1) benefits consumers, and 2) doesn't decrease competition.
With that said, the buy out would harm consumers, the economy, innovations, and the list goes on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applecation
For this to be accepted, AT&T would need to show how this will improve service to its customers, lower costs to the customers, and create jobs (no layoffs). Otherwise, no deal.
Creating $5, 000 new jobs does not mean a net gain of jobs if AT&T gets rid of more old jobs, which will be the case. There is no way AT&T is going to keep the thousands of T-Mobile employees in areas such as the T-Mobile stores.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsmythe00
So they not only will retain jobs in a merger environment where jobs are typically lost, but they will hire another 5k.
OMG is the middle class getting crapped on by corporations!
Creating $5, 000 new jobs does not mean a net gain of jobs if AT&T gets rid of more old jobs, which will be the case. There is no way AT&T is going to keep the thousands of T-Mobile employees in areas such as the T-Mobile stores.
That's assuming they don't actually grow the business and decide to stop making a profit.
This is BS. People are leaving Sprint because Sprint doesn't have competitive phones because Verizon and AT&T have to date have had the lock on such phones. Bring the iPhone to Sprint and the tide will reverse. Same with T-Mobile. I have an unlocked iPhone on T-Mobile not only because of the competive plan prices but because I have had horrible customer service experiences with AT&T and Verizon. I also get better reception with the iPhone then my friends on AT&T (although I understand reception is an area specific issue).
so says you......people are leaving Sprint in droves...why because their service sucks. People brag about having T-Mobile...why...because their plans are cheaper not beacuse they like their service. Most will not leave only to pay an ETF but when or if the their contract is up they will leave the low cost carriers (if all pricing and plans are the same) because their call quality is below that of other carriers.
All this will play out very soon and we will see......
BS. It is about AT&T wasting the spectrum it does have. You don't see Verizon, Sprint, or T-Mobile complaining about Spectrum. Do a Google search, there are plenty of articles out there that says companies like AT&T are hoarding spectrum. AT&T is actually wanting to buy T-Mobile to try to pressure more T-Mobile customers into higher priced data plans whereby the sale can subsidize the price of even more spectrum. There are also articles that suggest AT&T can buy the spectrum if it needed it without buying T-Mobile.
AT&T wants T-Mobile's customers to milk them for higher priced data plans. Currently, AT&T requires users of certain smart phones to have a data plan. T-Mobile has no such requirement. I have no data plan for my iPhone. With wi-fi, and a PDS app like Navigon, I don't need a data plan. I save several hundred dollars a year by avoiding a data plan I don't' want or need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOFEER
this really isn't about T-mobile
its the Govnt NOT releasing enough spectrum for telecos to use
ATT wants T-mobile's spectrum
how can we have competition and improved customer support with out MORE SPECTRUM
this just allows the established few to keep prices high
gee its all data, why pay for voice, data, sms separately (ok i know the answer) and these huge etf's
we need more competition (well some solution with sms with imessage, chaton, facebook sms) but really.....
Not doing well is relative. T-Mobile is profitable, making billions in profit yearly. T-Mobile's problem is it doesn't have access to desirable phones. If the iPhone was on T-Mobile it wouldn't' be losing subscribers. If you are going to be stuck with a phone for two years on contract, you want one you like.
AT&T and Verizon currently have a lock on some of the most desirable phones, including the iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
My question about this is the fact that T-Mobile Germany wants to sell its American company.
T-Mobile as a company is not doing well and if they simply go out of business, how is that any better for the consumer?
Comments
If I were a betting man, I'd bet a brand new iPhone 5 and the cost of two years of service that all hints of "unlimited" plans will be GONE on ALL carriers by 1/1/12. That's how sure I am that they're not going to be around much longer.
* nod * I would not take that bet. Am I ill for being happy that the main carriers in the U.S. will soon have the same iPhone and in 2012/2013 LTE will make them even more the same so there will be apples to apples competition (pardon the pun). They have to compete on price, packages (bundle with TV, phone, cloud services, etc), wireless service quality and customer service. Now if we can just get the consumer to not buy into the $199.00 phone that really costs them $700.00 over time, we can break the backs of these contracts. I'd take a discount on my monthly for buying the phone outright and have the freedom to tell a provider where they can stick it.
Cheers to Apple (and Google for riding along) for turning the wireless carriers into just another pipe and LTE for being a transport they can all agree on. Damn, do I hope Apple can do the same with the Cable TV business.
Except with the patent stick.
Except by all the people who will buy the iPhone? because a TWO YEAR OLD iPhone still sells better than any Android phone.
read his whole comment. he's talking specifically about specs and features. not sales and no idea what that patent stick comment had to do with anything.
Hate it or not the Galaxy S2 is a nice phone.
he's talking specifically about specs and features.
And I'm talking specifically that those don't matter at all. People couldn't care less.
They want a user experience. Which is what Apple gives them.
Nope. As long as the building of the actual infrastructure is left to private companies, the infrastructure will suck and the private companies will rape the consumers to get their costs (along with ridiculously huge levels of profit) back.
You must have missed the point where I said that we'd be better off with wireless networking as a commodity. Your description isn't that of a company's behavior in a commodity market.
History shows that with any basic infrastructure (or anything that through technological advancement *becomes* basic or necessary infrastructure), that private ownership always leaves the consumer holding the shitty end of the stick. Costs go out of control, waste is 70 to 80 percent of the costs, and all kinds of other nightmarish things.
You can certainly claim this all you want but that doesn't make it true. Cite some peer reviewed econ journal articles and I'll read them.
In my own experience I can think of a number of industries where privatization has been a good thing.
In the previous city I lived in city waste management services were privatized and costs have dropped drastically while service improved enormously. I can literally put anything out and they'll take it, because I could just pick from one of the 5 other providers in the region.
In Pittsburgh we have strong broadband competition between the cable company, fiber to the home, and 4g. Prices have been dropping and service speeds have been improving dramatically in the past three years.
When it comes to things like providing water, electricity, roads, and wires it's always far more efficient for the government (which is the people after all) to provide it. The US power grid is another prime example of this kind of nonsense at work.
This isn't really a great analogy as wireless towers aren't really the same as water, electricity, roads, or wires. I'm already covered by towers from four major carriers, plus I'd be happy to lease out my WiFi in a commodity setting.
Americans are conditioned by their ideology to think of government as "bad" so it will of course never happen (or at least not very soon),
Dude, government /is/ bad in America because every 4-12 years some idiot is in charge, and we generally don't get to have a vote of no confidence and get new elections.
but there are mountains of evidence that private ownership (and the sort of "fake competition" used to justify it), in these cases is really the prime cause of most of the problems.
I'm sure that you can pick out specific instances where this is the case, but I doubt that it's something you can make such a blanket statement about.
read his whole comment. he's talking specifically about specs and features. not sales and no idea what that patent stick comment had to do with anything.
You're saying you don't think apple is going to beat the Galaxy 2 with its patent stick?
I sell both these and iPhone 4's.
The iPhone 4 still outsells it.
Galaxy S 2 handsets have yet to be released on any carriers in the U.S.
where do you live?
The government believes the $39 billion deal with "substantially lessen competition" in the wireless market, according to Bloomberg. The U.S. Justice Department filed the complaint in federal court on Wednesday in Washington.
Is it too much to ask that journalists actually write a complete sentence? I doubt the DOJ released a press statement with the express intent to release a fragmented statement.
this really isn't about T-mobile
its the Govnt NOT releasing enough spectrum for telecos to use
ATT wants T-mobile's spectrum
how can we have competition and improved customer support with out MORE SPECTRUM
this just allows the established few to keep prices high
gee its all data, why pay for voice, data, sms separately (ok i know the answer) and these huge etf's
we need more competition (well some solution with sms with imessage, chaton, facebook sms) but really.....
The government released plenty of spectrum and T-Mobile's parent let them go nuts when they spent > $13 Billion for a certain portion of spectrum several years back, and yes AT&T wants it.
Talk about a bribery.
Even a small country like The Netherlands, with a faction of the US population, offers a 10 Euro per week unlimited internet package, and that's for prepaid customers!! I mean COME ON?!
$60 a month at 1Mbs. Good luck.
Early today it was leaked that AT&T is guaranteeing the DoJ that it will create 5,000 new domestic jobs if the deal is approved.
Talk about a bribery.
I don't understand the bribery angle. splain?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...77U0M620110831
read his whole comment. he's talking specifically about specs and features. not sales and no idea what that patent stick comment had to do with anything.
Hate it or not the Galaxy S2 is a nice phone.
Exactly
And I'm talking specifically that those don't matter at all. People couldn't care less.
They want a user experience. Which is what Apple gives them.
While I'll agree that specs can be and often are oversold, it does not appear that you have experience with any other OS besides IOS.
The next year is going to be very interesting across the board.
You're saying you don't think apple is going to beat the Galaxy 2 with its patent stick?
considering they already are and it doesn't seem to be going in their favor...no I don't.
And I'm talking specifically that those don't matter at all. People couldn't care less.
They want a user experience. Which is what Apple gives them.
and there is a UX Android and more specifically Samsung gives you. is it as fluid as iOS? no but to many people it offers more. he obviously has this mystical ability to appreciate both OSes and can thus judge on specs and features.
With that said, the buy out would harm consumers, the economy, innovations, and the list goes on.
For this to be accepted, AT&T would need to show how this will improve service to its customers, lower costs to the customers, and create jobs (no layoffs). Otherwise, no deal.
So they not only will retain jobs in a merger environment where jobs are typically lost, but they will hire another 5k.
OMG is the middle class getting crapped on by corporations!
Creating $5, 000 new jobs does not mean a net gain of jobs if AT&T gets rid of more old jobs, which will be the case. There is no way AT&T is going to keep the thousands of T-Mobile employees in areas such as the T-Mobile stores.
That's assuming they don't actually grow the business and decide to stop making a profit.
Further, T-Mobile has consistently ranked top in customer satisfaction. Recently T-Moble and Sprint tied for best.
so says you......people are leaving Sprint in droves...why because their service sucks. People brag about having T-Mobile...why...because their plans are cheaper not beacuse they like their service. Most will not leave only to pay an ETF but when or if the their contract is up they will leave the low cost carriers (if all pricing and plans are the same) because their call quality is below that of other carriers.
All this will play out very soon and we will see......
AT&T wants T-Mobile's customers to milk them for higher priced data plans. Currently, AT&T requires users of certain smart phones to have a data plan. T-Mobile has no such requirement. I have no data plan for my iPhone. With wi-fi, and a PDS app like Navigon, I don't need a data plan. I save several hundred dollars a year by avoiding a data plan I don't' want or need.
this really isn't about T-mobile
its the Govnt NOT releasing enough spectrum for telecos to use
ATT wants T-mobile's spectrum
how can we have competition and improved customer support with out MORE SPECTRUM
this just allows the established few to keep prices high
gee its all data, why pay for voice, data, sms separately (ok i know the answer) and these huge etf's
we need more competition (well some solution with sms with imessage, chaton, facebook sms) but really.....
AT&T and Verizon currently have a lock on some of the most desirable phones, including the iPhone.
My question about this is the fact that T-Mobile Germany wants to sell its American company.
T-Mobile as a company is not doing well and if they simply go out of business, how is that any better for the consumer?