That would be great. There is an AT&T tower just down road from my neighborhood, and as I turn onto my block my Verizon phone drops to one bar of LTE, so I can only use WiFi for web browsing and calling in my house.
Last edited:
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.
T-Mobile Announces UScellular Acquisition, Promises Improved Connectivity in Rural Areas
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That would be great. There is an AT&T tower just down road from my neighborhood, and as I turn onto my block my Verizon phone drops to one bar of LTE, so I can only use WiFi for web browsing and calling in my house.
T-Mobile is by far the most consumer-hostile, dishonest, and Orwellian carrier in the US today. Even if you were a sucker and a gullible moron that fell for when they claimed to be an "un-carrier" 10 years ago, you must realize by now none of that ever made any sense and it was all a scam from the start. Let us count the ways:
1) T-Mobile claimed to have killed 2-year contracts, only to replace them with "bill credits" structured as a contract in reverse that now shackles you to the carrier for up to 3 (!) years. This now infests the entire industry
2) T-Mobile pulled ALL of its products out of every single national retailer (Best Buy, Walmart, Sams Club, Target, etc) as part of their "un-carrier" because they were so cheap (in terms of quality and customer experience) they wouldn’t allow any store that is not their own to make a commission on any sale. T-Mobile then inherited all of Sprint’s national retailer agreements from the merger and lied about keeping the relationships only to pull out everywhere once again
3) T-Mobile claimed to have kept Sprint towers and promised to re-deploy them to expand their network, only to shut down the vast majority of Sprint's footprint and stuffing all customers onto existing overloaded T-Mobile towers
4) T-Mobile shows a large coverage map, but has a long tradition of only putting towers next to highways so to create an illusion of coverage
5) T-Mobile does not follow industry norms on roaming (within the US), and cheaps out wherever possible in the same way Southwest/Frontier/Spirit are substandard airlines that don't interline or work with normal airlines
6) T-Mobile plans and promotions are designed to be as difficult and as complex as possible, such that many errors occur (in the carrier's favor) and they attempt to make it as difficult as possible to resolve. Read it yourself on the T-Mobile leddit where employees openly admit this (their employees are also lazy, stupid, and dishonest, but that's probably more due to the fact it's leddit than anything else)
Say what you will about AT&T and Verizon, but at least they're known quantities instead of the dishonest virtue-signaling crooks at T-Mobile delivering the worst experience possible while pretending otherwise. You hardly even hear from T-Mobile shills anymore because there's no more work for them now that T-Mobile has gotten so large and does whatever it likes without consequence.
1) T-Mobile claimed to have killed 2-year contracts, only to replace them with "bill credits" structured as a contract in reverse that now shackles you to the carrier for up to 3 (!) years. This now infests the entire industry
2) T-Mobile pulled ALL of its products out of every single national retailer (Best Buy, Walmart, Sams Club, Target, etc) as part of their "un-carrier" because they were so cheap (in terms of quality and customer experience) they wouldn’t allow any store that is not their own to make a commission on any sale. T-Mobile then inherited all of Sprint’s national retailer agreements from the merger and lied about keeping the relationships only to pull out everywhere once again
3) T-Mobile claimed to have kept Sprint towers and promised to re-deploy them to expand their network, only to shut down the vast majority of Sprint's footprint and stuffing all customers onto existing overloaded T-Mobile towers
4) T-Mobile shows a large coverage map, but has a long tradition of only putting towers next to highways so to create an illusion of coverage
5) T-Mobile does not follow industry norms on roaming (within the US), and cheaps out wherever possible in the same way Southwest/Frontier/Spirit are substandard airlines that don't interline or work with normal airlines
6) T-Mobile plans and promotions are designed to be as difficult and as complex as possible, such that many errors occur (in the carrier's favor) and they attempt to make it as difficult as possible to resolve. Read it yourself on the T-Mobile leddit where employees openly admit this (their employees are also lazy, stupid, and dishonest, but that's probably more due to the fact it's leddit than anything else)
Say what you will about AT&T and Verizon, but at least they're known quantities instead of the dishonest virtue-signaling crooks at T-Mobile delivering the worst experience possible while pretending otherwise. You hardly even hear from T-Mobile shills anymore because there's no more work for them now that T-Mobile has gotten so large and does whatever it likes without consequence.
Damn, T-Mobile might be the best...
I use Verizon right now, but T-Mobile might be the way to go.
I use Verizon right now, but T-Mobile might be the way to go.
Just got a rate increase, now it makes sense. I’m glad my phones are purchased outright from Apple and are unlocked so I can jump ship whenever I want.
Yeah I have to manually fall back to LTE quite often, but you can blame that on the two major airfields and warships. They run right along the same frequencies as a lot of that stuff.
Yeah and still bummed you can’t get factory unlocked from Apple on Apple Card installments anymore. What a D/ick move.
ok. can you bring more frequent ability to transfer esims to mint mobile? it doesn't have to be daily, although that would be nice. but if you could say, give us 2 or 3 free weekly esim swaps, that would be nice, for many of us who have multiple devices.
Unless the infrastructure is being nationalised. Some things are too important to leave to the private sector, like broadband. The telcos have no incentive to pay for good internet access to rural areas. Or to major cities in some cases.
Unless something has changed, T-Mobile absolutely sucks in my area. When they took over Sprint, I tried to use their service. There are areas of this town where I had NO SERVICE AT ALL. And I could only get reception at my house if I stepped out into the backyard. Hope it's better now, since I think two of my coworkers still use US Cellular.
Fun fact: T-Mobile WAS the state owned and operated carrier of Germany.
Need to combine the physical assets of the mobile carriers for a shared services arrangement like was done after ma bell was broken up.
This would result in better coverage instead of spotty overlaps.
This would result in better coverage instead of spotty overlaps.
ahh, another telecom M&A, corporate america’s favorite pastime when they’re bored and out of ways to f— us over. love to see it! hopefully Lina Khan can get her ducks in a row with this one.
I don't like to see smaller carriers absorbed, but if US Cellular's coverage maps are to be believed, they have far better rural coverage than T-Mobile does in my area, so I personally benefit. I'd never have switched because I both use and need T-Mo's really good international features, but I'll get better service out in the woods than T-Mo provided to date.
Obviously if there was a single, unregulated (and for-profit) cell carrier it would be a disaster, but a hypothetical world in which a single organization efficiently built cell towers and took advantage of all available cellular bandwidth, everyone would have faster service and better coverage, with less dollars spent building redundant towers where they aren't necessary that could be put toward building them where they are or used to reduce overhead.
It's the same as why municipal internet providers can beat competing carriers--building a single high-quality (and highly regulated, public-good-intended) infrastructure in a town ends up being more efficient than three entirely separate sets of overlapping infrastructure all trying to serve the same customers.
It's the same reason we don't have a bunch of private road companies or a bunch of separate poles-and-wires electric distribution companies in each region--it would be monstrously inefficient to have competing, overlapping road systems, and photos of old cities showed what an absolute mess it was to have multiple companies with redundant electric wires, but that's functionally what we're doing with wireless spectrum.
For the most part I agree, but cellular networks are an example of competition leading to substantial inefficiency and a loss for everyone, in exchange for that competition. You have multiple carriers fighting over bandwidth and building entirely redundant cell towers to cover the same population centers, while in rural areas you might have one option that covers the places you need, but doesn't offer any of the features of other competitors.
Obviously if there was a single, unregulated (and for-profit) cell carrier it would be a disaster, but a hypothetical world in which a single organization efficiently built cell towers and took advantage of all available cellular bandwidth, everyone would have faster service and better coverage, with less dollars spent building redundant towers where they aren't necessary that could be put toward building them where they are or used to reduce overhead.
It's the same as why municipal internet providers can beat competing carriers--building a single high-quality (and highly regulated, public-good-intended) infrastructure in a town ends up being more efficient than three entirely separate sets of overlapping infrastructure all trying to serve the same customers.
It's the same reason we don't have a bunch of private road companies or a bunch of separate poles-and-wires electric distribution companies in each region--it would be monstrously inefficient to have competing, overlapping road systems, and photos of old cities showed what an absolute mess it was to have multiple companies with redundant electric wires, but that's functionally what we're doing with wireless spectrum.
This. This exactly. It should have been done a decade ago, but the ridiculous levels of redundant infrastructure and consumer-harmful spectrum competition we've accepted in exchange for the carrot of competition in other services is just shameful.
Don’t forget the constant leaking of customer’s data and privacy.
People talk consolidation stuff is bad and they don't even live in the markets that are served by the small carrier all the time. USCell is a good call to gobble up, just like when VZW gobbled up Alltel aeons ago to short up rural markets they didn't have their own network.
Also what people don't know T-Mobile doesn't have their own network in most of rural Nebraska, they partner coverage with Viaero. Or like Alaska with GCI. Those are just two large examples, and they will be able to help with one of them here. A transaction like this makes sense.
It works because it's an MVNO using both VZW and T-Mobile
Also what people don't know T-Mobile doesn't have their own network in most of rural Nebraska, they partner coverage with Viaero. Or like Alaska with GCI. Those are just two large examples, and they will be able to help with one of them here. A transaction like this makes sense.
It works because it's an MVNO using both VZW and T-Mobile
And many don’t trust AT&T or Verizon either. Pretty soon the big three (T-Mobile, Verizon, AT&T) will be the only choices you have. Other outfits use the big three’s infrastructure anyway so what’s your point?
No, it does not suck everywhere, and also all carriers claim to have the best network.
Why in the world are you comparing their rates to those in other countries? It's like saying man, gas at Shell is so much more expensive than at Sunoco... only you forgot to mention that the Shell station was in Cali, while Sunoco was in Florida)))
UScellular is a very small player (less than 1% wireless subscription market share according to Statista) in the U.S. so this acquisition isn't especially meaningful except perhaps for UScellular subscribers. UScellular even keeps ownership of its 4,400 towers and around 70% of its spectrum portfolio as part of the deal.
Approximate U.S. wireless subscription market share:
AT&T – 46.9%
Verizon – 28.6%
T-Mobile – 23.5%
UScellular – 0.9%
This compared to basically a merger of "equals" in the T-Mobile/Sprint deal. At the time that deal was announced in 2018, T-Mobile had around 16% market share and Sprint had 14%.
Approximate U.S. wireless subscription market share:
AT&T – 46.9%
Verizon – 28.6%
T-Mobile – 23.5%
UScellular – 0.9%
This compared to basically a merger of "equals" in the T-Mobile/Sprint deal. At the time that deal was announced in 2018, T-Mobile had around 16% market share and Sprint had 14%.
I don’t know that T-Mobile was blowing smoke back in the old “Un-Carrier” days. Under John Legere, T-Mobile launched a price war that lowered wireless carrier plan prices considerably. Before that, Verizon and AT&T were not only more expensive, but totally unyielding. Competition from T-Mobile after its purchase of Sprint improved that situation quite a bit. Even if you aren’t happy with your wireless bill, you get more for the same amount of money these days.
Now, I’ve been a T-Mobile customer for a number of years (having switched from AT&T). I have plenty of issues with TMO and I have no problem calling them out when I feel the need. But I see no need for the purchase of US Cellular to be blocked. The government may say it wants more carriers but the truth is we had only two viable national carriers (Verizon and AT&T) before TMO merged with Sprint. Those last two companies really couldn’t fully compete. Now, we have three viable national carriers. And, if TMO actually completes its acquisition of US Cellular, it will dramatically improve service in rural areas.
The truth is, US Cellular is selling for a reason: it cannot compete and sees bad things down the road.
Now, I’ve been a T-Mobile customer for a number of years (having switched from AT&T). I have plenty of issues with TMO and I have no problem calling them out when I feel the need. But I see no need for the purchase of US Cellular to be blocked. The government may say it wants more carriers but the truth is we had only two viable national carriers (Verizon and AT&T) before TMO merged with Sprint. Those last two companies really couldn’t fully compete. Now, we have three viable national carriers. And, if TMO actually completes its acquisition of US Cellular, it will dramatically improve service in rural areas.
The truth is, US Cellular is selling for a reason: it cannot compete and sees bad things down the road.
Interesting that Google Fi started out using T-mobile, Sprint, or US Cellular dynamically depending on whose signal was better in the area.
I don't know what to think of the fact that T-Mobile then acquired each one.
IF some good conditions are put on the merger it could be a good thing for a while, until conditions expire and they jack up the price. US Cellular's area was already limited.
I'm surprised any regional telcos are managing to continue to exist, honestly. They'll all be gobbled up eventually, and no judge in the US will ever again actually break up a monopoly.
I don't know what to think of the fact that T-Mobile then acquired each one.
IF some good conditions are put on the merger it could be a good thing for a while, until conditions expire and they jack up the price. US Cellular's area was already limited.
I'm surprised any regional telcos are managing to continue to exist, honestly. They'll all be gobbled up eventually, and no judge in the US will ever again actually break up a monopoly.
It was still somewhat smoke but Legere had little to lose and did indeed make lots of improvements. But he's gone now and it's just another corporate behemoth.
May as well let them do it and maybe actually have some effective regulation around it? Ha good joke, I know.