Way to quote me out of context. You should read the whole thing I said so it makes sense.
I'm not defending this merger, but you are just wrong.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Five Myths About The T-Mobile/AT&T Takeover
- Thread starter wordoflife
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Way to quote me out of context. You should read the whole thing I said so it makes sense.
I'm not defending this merger, but you are just wrong.
You cleary didn't read my original post. I stated that it's a business, and a win for AT&T because they get more towers, subscribers, and money. You basically misconstrued my entire original post, and told me I was wrong by contradicting yourself using my reasoning. So.. it does make sense
You cleary didn't read my original post. I stated that it's a business, and a win for AT&T because they get more towers, subscribers, and money. You basically misconstrued my entire original post, and told me I was wrong by contradicting yourself using my reasoning. So.. it does make sense
Actually, you implied that the whole reason that AT&T is doing this is because they are lazy and don't feel like building their own network. I'm saying that they are doing this because 1) it would be cheaper 2) it would be faster and 3) they would gain a lot of customers.
If anything, it looks like you contradicted yourself.
But whatever, I'm not going to argue with you about this.
spectrum has nothing to do with capacity...they can't just use the spectrum they have to add capacity, for many complicated reasons, but the biggest and simplest being that the phones they offer only utilize certain spectrums. Adding a spectrum their phones don't support would do nothing.
Actually, you implied that the whole reason that AT&T is doing this is because they are lazy and don't feel like building their own network. I'm saying that they are doing this because 1) it would be cheaper 2) it would be faster and 3) they would gain a lot of customers.
If anything, it looks like you contradicted yourself.
But whatever, I'm not going to argue with you about this.
Sigh, you wrote the same things as me, and contradicted yourself using my reasoning. Proof? Here
I heard that the T-Mobile's 4G devices won't be able to operate on 4G anymore (since AT&T will repurpose it) but there should be a program that will allow customers to trade in their 4G phone for something that will work ... at least they are being considerate.
Either way, it's going to be a long process.
On point #4... When ATT told the FCC that it would cover 97% of America w/ hspa+ EVEN IF the merger was blocked. What year did they say they would do that by?
I mean there are HUGE pockets of the ATT network that are only 2g Edge and yet they are already promising to upgrade their entire U.S. network with hspa+ before they even upgrade it to 3g???
I mean there are HUGE pockets of the ATT network that are only 2g Edge and yet they are already promising to upgrade their entire U.S. network with hspa+ before they even upgrade it to 3g???
On point #4... When ATT told the FCC that it would cover 97% of America w/ hspa+ EVEN IF the merger was blocked. What year did they say they would do that by?
I mean there are HUGE pockets of the ATT network that are only 2g Edge and yet they are already promising to upgrade their entire U.S. network with hspa+ before they even upgrade it to 3g???
3G and HSPA+ use the same technology, so it really doesn't matter. They don't need to jump from 2G to 3G to finally get HSPA+.
LTE is different though, and will take time.
About your first question, this is what I found. It says end of 2012
http://www.howardforums.com/showthr...r-97-of-Americans-with-HSPA-4G-by-end-of-2012
Last edited:
Gotcha wordoflife
But my original question still remains... Which year did ATT tell the FCC that they would upgrade their entire U.S. network with 3G/hspa+ by???
If they did this it would be absolutely amazing
Last edited:
Gotcha wordoflife
But my original question still remains... Which year did ATT tell the FCC that they would upgrade their entire U.S. network with 3G/hspa+ by???
If they did this it would be absolutely amazing
lol, there is a possibilty that I don't know the answer to your question, hence the reason why I didn't respond to that
But, I edited my post to make things more clear and found an answer to your question (via Google
). please take a look at itI edited my post to make things more succinct and to the point, lol. please take a look at it.
Woops sorry I guess I am too quick to respond
Thanks wordoflife I really appreciate you posting the search you did from howardforums. I was searching on Google as well but couldn't find anything but you made me a happy man.
2012 for the entire ATT network to be 3g (no more 2g edge)... thats amazing
Don't worry about it, it's all goodWoops sorry I guess I am too quick to respond
Thanks wordoflife I really appreciate you posting the search you did from howardforums. I was searching on Google as well but couldn't find anything but you made me a happy man.
2012 for the entire ATT network to be 3g (no more 2g edge)... thats amazing
I think having a large 3G network would be amazing. Apparently on Verizon, you can travel all the way from MA to FL and not lose 3G service at all. I still question though if this is good for T-mobile and US telecoms in general.
I'm still 50/50 on this, but its pretty obvious why AT&T wants T-mobile so badly
Plus, as mentioned on the first page, T-Mobile isn't in a position to continue with all the customers it is losing
Don't worry about it, it's all good
I think having a large 3G network would be amazing. Apparently on Verizon, you can travel all the way from MA to FL and not lose 3G service at all. I still question though if this is good for T-mobile and US telecoms in general.
I'm still 50/50 on this, but its pretty obvious why AT&T wants T-mobile so badly
Verizon and AT&T's definition of 3G though is different though. Verizon's CDMA network hosts a broad range of speeds, going down to AT&T's EDGE speed, whereas 3G is generally faster in more areas. Verizon's strength is a solid, stable network that's everywhere, whereas AT&T has a more spotty network, especially with their 3G service, but it is overall, faster. LTE is different though, and Verizon has a leg up because of their earlier implementation of the standard... even if they're being douches these days and deciding to limit the frequencies to spectrum that will not be compatible with the other LTE networks in the US.
TL;DR explanation: Both AT&T and Verizon are evil in different ways, and both have some good parts too. It really comes down to the devil you know and how comfortable you are with them.
That's true. Luckily though, Verizon's 3G networks works rather well most of the time. Thats what I was saying though, that if the merger went through, AT&T's coverage should hopefully be on par with Verizon's coverage ... not as spotty as it is now.
pardon my ignorance, but isn't operating on different frequencies for the better? wouldn't things slow for everyone if AT&T and Verizon were trying to use the same frequency?
Yes and no. Yes, it would slow things down if the companies only used one or two frequencies, but if all the wireless companies could use all the frequencies currently allowed for wireless, than there would be plenty of bandwidth out there and there wouldn't in reality be any slow downs. The problem in the US is that our spectrums are owned by individual corporations who monopolize them and exploit that monopoly to lock customers down with their equipment. Verizon is the most guilty of this tactic, although AT&T is certainly not innocent of it either. I wish we could have a European style competitive system in wireless services. We'd pay much, much less for improved service.
LOL funny thing about that is. Most of the network you say AT&T is too lazy to build is the same network AT&T built and had to sell off to t-mobile back in the cingulair days.
I'm a "free market capitalist" and I think the merger sucks. I also realize that the US mobile phone market is far from a "free market".
Who told you that Apple isn't subject to government regulations?
Because they're wrong.
I personally hope this doesn't get approved or doesn't happen for awhile.
I am going to miss the T-Mo prepaid plans. I am thinking of going back to prepaid next year because I realized I don't even talk much on the phone anymore and can always text using Google Voice. I have free Wi-Fi access all the time. So having a contract for me is overkill.
And I am really going to miss that T-Mobile girl, Carly.
I am going to miss the T-Mo prepaid plans. I am thinking of going back to prepaid next year because I realized I don't even talk much on the phone anymore and can always text using Google Voice. I have free Wi-Fi access all the time. So having a contract for me is overkill.
And I am really going to miss that T-Mobile girl, Carly.
-_-...It is a known fact T-Mobile was failing. Yes, they could afford to move forward with 4G, but would it have been a smart investment?
He said "The only reason the iPhone exists is because of free market capitalism."
And as I pointed out, since Apple has not now, nor ever, been a part of a free-market capitalist economy I'm not really sure what his point was.
If he's making some point that free-market capitalism somewhere else contributed to the invention of the iPhone...well then he'll have to come back and explain that in greater detail for me.
I don't really have any stake in this, but you're pretty clearly misunderstanding what most people (and probably the person in question) mean when they make a comment like that. You could take issue with his claim that "The only reason the iPhone exists is because of free market capitalism," (with emphasis on "the only") but that would be a slightly different matter.
So, when someone says something about a "free market" or "free market capitalism," they (colloquially) mean it about something in varying degrees. It probably does fit when you're talking about the United States, as it typically ranks pretty highly (5th highest in 2008) in Index of Economic Freedom's rankings. This is a term ("free market" etc) that is usually used in a relative way in contemporary (and probably historically) parlance. You really could say the same for a term like "controlled market," in other words, nothing is probably ever really a completely "controlled market."
These terms do have a core meaning, but (the farther out we get) things get a little bit mushy after that. Anyway, I guess that's sort of my take on it. In addition, I really don't know if most folks realize how much economic freedom we really do have (relative to most countries) in the US.