No cell towers but we have big ass white windmills that love killing protected birds!
Gotta love dem environ-demented-less! Including head clueless broad NP...
/
/
/
Same on the other side. NYC burbs they either passed a law or will soon that says no cell towers near schools, churches and other public buildings. In effect no new cell towers.
Edit: I found an article posted by that right wing, whacked, fringe rag - The Boston Globe, 6 groups filing suit in Federal Court. . I stand corrected.
There, changed the quote for you for no particular reason QUOTE]
It was fine before. The iPhone's hardware doesn't support TMobile's 3G(4G) frequencies.
I changed it because your response implied that Apple is at fault for not making an iPhone that's compatible with T-mobile's network.
Very, very few networks worldwide use T-Mobile USA's 1700MHz frequency for their mobiles.
It's easy for Apple to make a third iPhone version specific to T-Mobile's frequencies, but it may not be worth Apple's time and expense for what is a small market by its nature.
Who knows, if T-mobile is willing to offer Apple some "encouragement" then a T-mobile 3G(4G) iPhone could be more forthcoming.
Maybe Apple for its new phone has gone for the technically impressive solution of a phone which covers all five GSM bands and the CDMA networks, a world phone for all world markets.
It makes for a complex product but simplifies production and distribution.
Quote:
Don't confuse others.
Don't patronise other people's ability to understand.
Well, it looks like the N94 Prototype that was tested with T-Mobile's frequency bands in the BoyGeniusReport article may turn out to be a modified iPhone 4 for T-Mobile until a T-Mobile iPhone 5 comes out. We have to remember that the iPhone 4 for Verizon came out later than the one for AT&T due to the modifications needed to make it work on their network.
It does seem interesting that the announcement for the next iPhone will be after the U.S. Department of Justice wins in court defeating AT&T's repeal of why the acquisition/merger of T-Mobile should not occur. To me, it looks like Apple is waiting for the results of this case to decide whether or not T-Mobile should carry the iPhone. It also looks like that they are waiting for the Federal Communications Commission decision of whether AT&T can use T-Mobile's frequency bands; this decision will come some time after AT&T's repeal gets rejected.
I changed it because your response implied that Apple is at fault for not making an iPhone that's compatible with T-mobile's network.
Oh, sorry that I thought you were simply being petty rather than correcting an erroneous statement. My mistake. It's plainly TMobile's fault that the iPhone doesn't have the hardware to work with their frequencies.
whatever guys. everything just a takes few seconds later?literally. who cares? big deal. well worth the savings.
I'm sure it is to some, but certainly not to all, as illustrated by the willingness of 95% of iPhone users to spend nearly double what you spend for better service. The numbers don't lie. Plus the inability to transfer data while talking, I'm SO glad I don't have to worry about that since the 3G iPhone.
I'm sure it is to some, but certainly not to all, as illustrated by the willingness of 95% of iPhone users to spend nearly double what you spend for better service. The numbers don't lie. Plus the inability to transfer data while talking, I'm SO glad I don't have to worry about that since the 3G iPhone.
So, what's your point? Some people don't care about simultaneous voice and data, and if they did, they'd move to AT&T. But they're not, and some have WiFi like 90% of the time (like me), so that feature is almost moot. So why not save $20 or more a month and decide to treat yourself to a nice dinner instead?
So, what's your point? Some people don't care about simultaneous voice and data, and if they did, they'd move to AT&T. But they're not, and some have WiFi like 90% of the time (like me), so that feature is almost moot. So why not save $20 or more a month and decide to treat yourself to a nice dinner instead?
The point is that most people disagree with you, that it's worth the sacrifices to lose 3G speeds and simultaneous data for 5,000 hours each month just to save 8 cents an hour. Being able to download a 2 MB file in 30 seconds instead of 10 minutes on Edge just once a month is worth the $30 premium I pay.
But I have no qualms with each person making their own decision. Not everyone's time has the same value. If ATT cost $200 a month and the only alternative was T Mobile at $50 per month, I'd still be on ATT. Without the features and the speed of ATT's network, I wouldn't be able to run my company.
It's plainly TMobile's fault that the iPhone doesn't have the hardware to work with their frequencies.
I sense your sarcasm but I find it childish and simplistic to suggest it's a matter of fault and blame: a 1700 MHz iPhone may simply not be worthwhile for either party.
Consider:
Verizon 100 million subscribers
Sprint 50 million subscribers
i.e. 150 million potential EVDO iPhone buyers.
AT&T - GSM/UMTS with 100 million subscribers plus the hundreds of millions on "regular frequency" GSM/UMTS networks around the world
i.e. 1000 million potential "regular frequency" UMTS/GSM iPhone buyers.
Now compare to T-mobile USA with its 1700 MHz frequency and 33 million subscribers: less than Sprint.
A 3G(4G) 1700 MHz T-mobile iPhone will incur the same manufacturing, distribution and regulatory costs (do you think the FTC work for free?) but will be for a smaller market, T-mobile's 33 million. It will also use up time and material which could otherwise been used to make iPhones for the larger markets.
Furthermore Apple can sell the same iPhone offered by AT&T to other carriers around the world: excess inventory in one country can be used to meet excess demand in another.
In contrast, should the 1700 MHz T-mobile iPhone fail to sell then it can only be sold as a crippled EDGE iPhone on other GSM/UMTS networks or worse still end up as landfill.
There is risk to Apple in creating a phone for such a limited market. Don't forget AT&T and Apple spent time negotiating over the details and risks (i.e. "finances") of bringing the first iPhone to market.
It's possible that upon discussion neither Apple nor T-mobile USA felt the risk and cost in creating a 1700MHz 3G(4G) iPhone was worth the potential reward.
. . . A 3G(4G) 1700 MHz T-mobile iPhone will incur the same manufacturing, distribution and regulatory costs (do you think the FTC work for free?) but will be for a smaller market, T-mobile's 33 million. It will also use up time and material which could otherwise been used to make iPhones for the larger markets.
. . .In contrast, should the 1700 MHz T-mobile iPhone fail to sell then it can only be sold as a crippled EDGE iPhone on other GSM/UMTS networks or worse still end up as landfill.
. . .There is risk to Apple in creating a phone for such a limited market.
And yet HTC, LG, Samsung and Motorola are risk-takers at TMobile?
But that's entirely secondary to my original post that Apple's current hardware doesn't support TMobile's network, which is why 3G services are not available for an unlocked iPhone thru no fault of TMobile. A simple truthful statement that provided an answer to a forum member that was confused by the issue. For some reason that still remains unclear you took issue the explanation and felt the need to alter it, shifting responsibilty to the carrier for not having proper frequencies.
No matter, over and done with. On to more important things.
And yet HTC, LG, Samsung and Motorola are risk-takers at TMobile?
But that's entirely secondary to my original post...A simple truthful statement that provided an answer to a forum member that was confused by the issue. For some reason that still remains unclear you took issue the explanation and felt the need to alter it, shifting responsibilty to the carrier for not having proper frequencies. :???
Your original answer to the forum member was irelevalent to his statement, TBell correctly stated Tmobile reduces the data speed if a subscriber exceeds their data allowance, yet you respond that's Apple's fault even though it applies to any mobile device on the T mobile?
If you can respond with irelevant replies to posts, then surely I can post related replies and conjectures to your posts?
There are at least 600 mobile networks in the world, of which less than ten are using the 1700MHz frequency for 3G/4G data.
as for HTC, LG etc being risk takers, if you've got nothing to lose then it becomes more acceptable to take high risks. A little income is better than a total loss.
However with iPhones selling well globally, why should Apple waste time and resource selling a small number of iPhones on a niche network, when those same resources can be used to sell far more iPhones globally?
Comments
No cell towers but we have big ass white windmills that love killing protected birds!
Gotta love dem environ-demented-less!
/
/
/
Same on the other side. NYC burbs they either passed a law or will soon that says no cell towers near schools, churches and other public buildings. In effect no new cell towers.
NYC they build towers on every building they can
Please stop spreading lies from the Fox news channel.
Read this:http://science.howstuffworks.com/env...kill-birds.htm
Where does his link mention Fox?
Edit: I found an article posted by that right wing, whacked, fringe rag - The Boston Globe, 6 groups filing suit in Federal Court. . I stand corrected.
Seriously though, hyperbole-fail.
There, changed the quote for you for no particular reason QUOTE]
It was fine before. The iPhone's hardware doesn't support TMobile's 3G(4G) frequencies.
I changed it because your response implied that Apple is at fault for not making an iPhone that's compatible with T-mobile's network.
Very, very few networks worldwide use T-Mobile USA's 1700MHz frequency for their mobiles.
It's easy for Apple to make a third iPhone version specific to T-Mobile's frequencies, but it may not be worth Apple's time and expense for what is a small market by its nature.
Who knows, if T-mobile is willing to offer Apple some "encouragement" then a T-mobile 3G(4G) iPhone could be more forthcoming.
Maybe Apple for its new phone has gone for the technically impressive solution of a phone which covers all five GSM bands and the CDMA networks, a world phone for all world markets.
It makes for a complex product but simplifies production and distribution.
Don't confuse others.
Don't patronise other people's ability to understand.
I jumped to this article because I thought the iPhone 5 is not coming out this year.
Turns out T-Mobile exec saying that the iPhone 5 is not coming to his company this year.
Such a misleading title.
Real journalism died in the Nineties.
Sorry you didn't get the memo.
Such a misleading title.
Agreed. This one would have been better:
T-Mobile is doomed?
2G, not 2GB.
Good luck using 2 gigabytes of data on Edge though!
whatever guys. everything just a takes few seconds later?literally. who cares? big deal. well worth the savings.
ATT works just fine outside of hippie
not from what i've heard.
we don't want any cell phone towers land
how right you are. the nut-ball left makes me crazy?constantly?and i'm not a republican.
It does seem interesting that the announcement for the next iPhone will be after the U.S. Department of Justice wins in court defeating AT&T's repeal of why the acquisition/merger of T-Mobile should not occur. To me, it looks like Apple is waiting for the results of this case to decide whether or not T-Mobile should carry the iPhone. It also looks like that they are waiting for the Federal Communications Commission decision of whether AT&T can use T-Mobile's frequency bands; this decision will come some time after AT&T's repeal gets rejected.
I changed it because your response implied that Apple is at fault for not making an iPhone that's compatible with T-mobile's network.
Oh, sorry that I thought you were simply being petty rather than correcting an erroneous statement. My mistake. It's plainly TMobile's fault that the iPhone doesn't have the hardware to work with their frequencies.
whatever guys. everything just a takes few seconds later?literally. who cares? big deal. well worth the savings.
I'm sure it is to some, but certainly not to all, as illustrated by the willingness of 95% of iPhone users to spend nearly double what you spend for better service. The numbers don't lie. Plus the inability to transfer data while talking, I'm SO glad I don't have to worry about that since the 3G iPhone.
I'm sure it is to some, but certainly not to all, as illustrated by the willingness of 95% of iPhone users to spend nearly double what you spend for better service. The numbers don't lie. Plus the inability to transfer data while talking, I'm SO glad I don't have to worry about that since the 3G iPhone.
So, what's your point? Some people don't care about simultaneous voice and data, and if they did, they'd move to AT&T. But they're not, and some have WiFi like 90% of the time (like me), so that feature is almost moot. So why not save $20 or more a month and decide to treat yourself to a nice dinner instead?
So, what's your point? Some people don't care about simultaneous voice and data, and if they did, they'd move to AT&T. But they're not, and some have WiFi like 90% of the time (like me), so that feature is almost moot. So why not save $20 or more a month and decide to treat yourself to a nice dinner instead?
The point is that most people disagree with you, that it's worth the sacrifices to lose 3G speeds and simultaneous data for 5,000 hours each month just to save 8 cents an hour. Being able to download a 2 MB file in 30 seconds instead of 10 minutes on Edge just once a month is worth the $30 premium I pay.
But I have no qualms with each person making their own decision. Not everyone's time has the same value. If ATT cost $200 a month and the only alternative was T Mobile at $50 per month, I'd still be on ATT. Without the features and the speed of ATT's network, I wouldn't be able to run my company.
It's plainly TMobile's fault that the iPhone doesn't have the hardware to work with their frequencies.
I sense your sarcasm but I find it childish and simplistic to suggest it's a matter of fault and blame: a 1700 MHz iPhone may simply not be worthwhile for either party.
Consider:
Verizon 100 million subscribers
Sprint 50 million subscribers
i.e. 150 million potential EVDO iPhone buyers.
AT&T - GSM/UMTS with 100 million subscribers plus the hundreds of millions on "regular frequency" GSM/UMTS networks around the world
i.e. 1000 million potential "regular frequency" UMTS/GSM iPhone buyers.
Now compare to T-mobile USA with its 1700 MHz frequency and 33 million subscribers: less than Sprint.
A 3G(4G) 1700 MHz T-mobile iPhone will incur the same manufacturing, distribution and regulatory costs (do you think the FTC work for free?) but will be for a smaller market, T-mobile's 33 million. It will also use up time and material which could otherwise been used to make iPhones for the larger markets.
Furthermore Apple can sell the same iPhone offered by AT&T to other carriers around the world: excess inventory in one country can be used to meet excess demand in another.
In contrast, should the 1700 MHz T-mobile iPhone fail to sell then it can only be sold as a crippled EDGE iPhone on other GSM/UMTS networks or worse still end up as landfill.
There is risk to Apple in creating a phone for such a limited market. Don't forget AT&T and Apple spent time negotiating over the details and risks (i.e. "finances") of bringing the first iPhone to market.
It's possible that upon discussion neither Apple nor T-mobile USA felt the risk and cost in creating a 1700MHz 3G(4G) iPhone was worth the potential reward.
. . . A 3G(4G) 1700 MHz T-mobile iPhone will incur the same manufacturing, distribution and regulatory costs (do you think the FTC work for free?) but will be for a smaller market, T-mobile's 33 million. It will also use up time and material which could otherwise been used to make iPhones for the larger markets.
. . .In contrast, should the 1700 MHz T-mobile iPhone fail to sell then it can only be sold as a crippled EDGE iPhone on other GSM/UMTS networks or worse still end up as landfill.
. . .There is risk to Apple in creating a phone for such a limited market.
And yet HTC, LG, Samsung and Motorola are risk-takers at TMobile?
But that's entirely secondary to my original post that Apple's current hardware doesn't support TMobile's network, which is why 3G services are not available for an unlocked iPhone thru no fault of TMobile. A simple truthful statement that provided an answer to a forum member that was confused by the issue. For some reason that still remains unclear you took issue the explanation and felt the need to alter it, shifting responsibilty to the carrier for not having proper frequencies.
No matter, over and done with. On to more important things.
And yet HTC, LG, Samsung and Motorola are risk-takers at TMobile?
But that's entirely secondary to my original post...A simple truthful statement that provided an answer to a forum member that was confused by the issue. For some reason that still remains unclear you took issue the explanation and felt the need to alter it, shifting responsibilty to the carrier for not having proper frequencies. :???
Your original answer to the forum member was irelevalent to his statement, TBell correctly stated Tmobile reduces the data speed if a subscriber exceeds their data allowance, yet you respond that's Apple's fault even though it applies to any mobile device on the T mobile?
If you can respond with irelevant replies to posts, then surely I can post related replies and conjectures to your posts?
There are at least 600 mobile networks in the world, of which less than ten are using the 1700MHz frequency for 3G/4G data.
as for HTC, LG etc being risk takers, if you've got nothing to lose then it becomes more acceptable to take high risks. A little income is better than a total loss.
However with iPhones selling well globally, why should Apple waste time and resource selling a small number of iPhones on a niche network, when those same resources can be used to sell far more iPhones globally?