It's a natural fit for AT&T to buy T-Mobile. They both 3G GSM (UMTS) technology. T-Mobile is probably better in some key markets than AT&T, most notably New York (City).
The one issue with T-Mobile is it uses the fairly nonstandard 1870 MHz frequency. I don't know of any other carrier that does (anywhere). I assume this is because AT&T has the rights to the more common frequencies in the relevant markets? I wonder what technical and regulatory hurdles stand in their way for switching T-Mobile infrastructure to also do the "standard" frequencies.
Wireless really is a mess in the US. Europe and Australia have really benefited from choosing one technology (GSM). In the US you pick your carrier then pick your phone. Elsewhere you basically pick your phone then pick your carrier. Don't like you carrier? Swap your SIM. Problem solved. The US really suffers (from the consumer point of view) by this lack of carrier mobility.
It's my theory that US wireless is so expensive at least in part due to it being the most balkanized market in the developed world (and possibly the entire world).
I was hoping LTE would help alleviate this problem as it seemed to be on the road map for 3 out of 4 of the carriers (all but Sprint). Now I guess it's still 2 of 3. Sprint is still the odd man out with the (basically failed) WiMax technology.
I can see this acquisition facing some serious regulatory and legislative scrutiny.
> I can see this acquisition facing some serious regulatory and legislative scrutiny.
One can hope, but I'm not holding my breath. My guess is that FTC and FCC will make some comments, AT&T will make some small gestures, the deal gets approved and about a year later AT&T's plans increase in price by 15-20%.
And Slashdot and Reddit and a thousand independent tech blogs will fill with upset explanations of why this is bad for the market while no formal challenge or brief to the FTC is ever mounted.
Genuine question: Obviously it can't be challenged on anti-trust grounds (unless the original AT&T settlement applies here somehow), and I don't know enough US law to know what else might apply. I know many countries have a regulator for mergers that can sometimes apply a "bad for competition" policy, but I thought in the US that would only apply if it forms an actual monopoly?
I think your assumption is wrong that the FTC will only block these sorts of deals if a company has a monopoly. I think they actually have rules they generally follow about how big a company they'll allow given the number and size of other market participants. Not sure if it varies by industry.
If by "some comments" you mean hand waiving, and "small gestures" you mean agree to roll out LTE to a few major markets in exchange for a couple billion in tax credits, you're probably spot on.
> Wireless really is a mess in the US. Europe and Australia have really benefited from choosing one technology (GSM).
How are pricing plans in the US when you are roaming beyond your state? I live in Sweden, where I have a decently priced data and call plan.
However, as soon as I go outside of Sweden, which is a small country (9M people), I have to pay roaming charges. I don't mind so much the call charges, but they want €4/MB ($5.60/MB) for data. Which essentially means that I don't use data roaming at all when out of town unless on Wifi, and I don't travel much in Sweden. Ok, so I can get calls when I travel, but I hardly use the phone for calls, I use it for the data access.
Yes, I can get another SIM, but then I have to tell everyone who may call me that I have changed number for that week, which is not really workable.
These days, cell phone plans in the US are generally national plans with no domestic roaming charges between states or regions. International roaming still hurts though.
My iPhone is roaming on telenor. AT&T wants to charge me $19.99 per MB for data roaming here. Needless to say it turned it off and I'm using wifi when available.
Data roaming in Europe is truly painful. As far as covering a large geographic area, the US carriers sell plans that are convenient to use within the US.
Yes, I can get another SIM, but then I have to tell everyone who may call me that I have changed number for that week, which is not really workable.
Right now I'm travelling in Australia and have settled on getting a local pre-paid SIM with a few GB of data included. I purchased a Skype-online number and am forwarding my US Google Voice number to my Skype number, which I can answer either with Skype running on my phone (Nexus One) or directly with my phone (via Skype forwarding). Additionally I can tether my phone to my netbook via USB or wifi. (The people at Vodafone AU spent about 15 minutes trying to figure out if that was allowed on a pre-paid SIM.)
This is not exactly a simple solution, but is working for me on the road to make relatively cheap calls and I'm always reachable (when I want to be).
I'm not very optimistic about what will happen to my T-mobile bill with AT&T buying them.
Google Voice eliminates the problem of having to tell people to call you at a different number. As I understand it this was Grand Central's motivation for developing the technology in the first place.
Roaming beyond ones state doesn't change anything. So long as you are on your carriers network you are still fine. I moved from New Jersey to Arizona to Colorado and have had no extra fees.
However when I leave the country they want $10 per MB of data, and $1.29 per minute for calls, and $0.99 for text messages. (This is T-Mobile).
The data roaming on AT&T is actually relatively reasonable, as long as you sign up for their 'Smartphone International Data Package'. You can call to add it to the account before you leave the country, and remove it once you come back, they will even prorate it for partial month.
It's 20MB for $25/mo, 50MB for $60/mo, 100MB for $120, and 200MB for $200/mo.
I usually sign up for 200mb plan if I am going somewhere for a week, and don't worry too much about data usage (email, web, yelp app). Turn it few days after I am back, and all roaming charges had chance to post.
> However, as soon as I go outside of Sweden, which is a small country (9M people), I have to pay roaming charges.
This can be problematic for those always on the move (the US has an all-round advantage on domestic market size), but in addition to the 2007 and 2010 roaming regs, the EU is apparently looking at forcing more reasonable data roaming charges across the board.
The reason for this ridiculous prices is quite simple: cellular networks just weren't designed with data roaming in mind.
If you use data roaming, traffic from your device goes back to your home operator and only after that to Internet. I don't know if any significant changes were made in Rel-8 (Rel-10?), but for now that's how it works.
The most reasonable roaming plan I've found is with Japanese carrier Softbank. Last summer they released a ¥1,500/day (~$20) unlimited data plan. While roaming if you use any data, they charge you $20 but you can use as much of it as you want for a 24 hour period.
> The one issue with T-Mobile is it uses the fairly nonstandard 1870 MHz frequency. I don't know of any other carrier that does (anywhere).
I think you mean GSM/UMTS band II (PCS), as 1870 is in the uplink portion of PCS (1850–1910MHz). That's a pretty standard frequency in North America. All four major US carriers (ATT, T-Mo, Verizon, and Sprint) operate in it (CDMA band class 1 overlaps with UMTS band II), as well as Bell and Telus in Canada, and Telcel in Mexico.
The only somewhat-oddball spectrum T-Mobile has is AWS, which they use for UMTS service. Even then, that's still a standard band according to the ITU.
Wind, Mobilicity etc are all new (they popped in existence after our AWS auction), and only have limited coverage (outside of their coverage area, they all have sharage agreements with one of the big three). For example, Wind only services a few of the major cities, but the moment you leave Wind's towers range, you're switched over the Roger's network and are charged hilarious fees.
And our Big Three (Bell, Rogers, and Telus) are even worse than youres. It's beyond ridiculous.
Also of note that with Bell and Telus's new 3G network, Bell built out the Eastern half (its home base) and Telus built the Western, and they each share their networks with the other. That way, they could build out a next-generation network for half the cost, and twice as fast.
There are also a large number of non-major players (such as SaskTel in Saskatchewan, Aliant in the Maritimes, and so on) that are largely irrelevant unless you live in their coverage areas.
Not to belabor the point, but it's worth noticing that it was a lack of regulation that caused the mess in the US. The FCC should have just mandated one technology (as in most other countries).
Having the government decided which technologies can be used might have had some benefits here but it seems like there would be a lot less work on making technologies better and a lot more work on lobbying if that were the case.
While I don't think the mandate would have been a good idea, I don't think you can use the US as a case for 'making the technologies better'.
We're way behind everybody else...
Mandates worked for TV standards (original standard def). Then when high def came around, everyone was lobbying for their own formats with too many official formats.
The government could have just mandated that the industry had to settle on a single standard (without the government needing to specify which technology to use).
My (completely unscientific and as an outsider) observation is that this is only part of the problem.
The other part seems to be the attitude that customers are the enemy, who should be squeezed for their last cent while being provided with minimal service and support.
Add to that very weak customer protection laws and lack of competition.
Even if you could simply swap your SIM card to swap providers in the US, the majority of customers would not suddenly become portable; people don't want to pay $500 up front for a phone, even though they're paying more down the line.
A lot of people I know don’t want to pay $500 up front for a phone, but I think there is a lot of path dependency in this. It’s a lot more common in Europe to pay $500 or even more for a smartphone. When I lived in Denmark I did that at least twice. Americans are willing to pay $500 or more for an iPad. A non-trivial number paid $600 for the first generation iPhone, although not enough for Apple to continue with that model in the US.
Even if iPads or other tablets become subsidized by carriers, my guess is that a lot of tablets will still be sold without subsidy simply because people are used to it.
Another effect of being able to simply swap SIM cards is that there will be a larger population of useful old unlocked/unlockable phones out there with expired contracts. A lot of early GSM competition in Europe was driven by smaller carriers or MVNOs who could simply send you a SIM card to put in your old phone.
> people don't want to pay $500 up front for a phone, even though they're paying more down the line.
As far as I can tell, T-Mobile is (was?) the only major US carrier to even offer the option of buying a phone up front and then getting a month-to-month plan that costs less than the equivalent 2-year contract. That is what I use and all told it is going to save me about $200 over two years vs. a subsidy based plan. But if hypothetically my monthly rate were the same as what it would be on a 2-year contract, as it would be on AT&T, why wouldn't I take advantage of the subsidized phones (apart from lock-in)?
OK, there are prepaid plans, but the choice of phones (especially smartphones) is limited compared to what's available on postpaid.
Prepaid plans don't necessarily restrict your choice of phone. I have an iPhone on T-mobile prepaid. That requires unlocking, of course, but most other smart phones wouldn't even require that (and would have 3G)
Smartphones are only getting cheaper. My smartphone is an LG Optimus V, which was $150 without a contract (but it's bound to Virgin Mobile, a prepaid carrier). By my estimation the phone is all-around better than a 3G iPhone. Obviously I probably got the phone somewhere near at-cost (considering how hard the RadioShack employees push you against buying it) but smartphones will be dirt cheap soon enough.
I've been having problems with my Optimus V through Virgin Mobile.
It crashes in call (total power off); data availability hasn't been stable (I would say about once a week I have significant issues where I won't be able to use email, a browser, etc. for the entire day); maps/GPS is iffy; I think there are some interface design flaws.*
I used to have an iPhone 3G. I thought it was great.
I switched to VM for the plan -- $25/month for 300 minutes, unlimited text and data ($40/month for 1200 minutes).
Honestly, though, these problems haven't really bothered me too much. I've found that for $25 or $40 a month it's fine with me if the experience isn't "perfect".
I have Optimus V running AOSP Android 2.3( custom rom ) and it runs amazingly, underclocks when not in use , overclocks when using, great battery life and responsiveness. For the value of the phone and not being on a contract its an amazing deal.
I also have the VM Optimus V and the main issue I see is losing data connectivity occasionally then the phone not being able to get back onto the data network. However, turning airplane mode on then off usually gets things working again.
that's my phone as well. no problems so far. $150 up-front cost is great. but mostly i like the $25/month no-contract with unlimited data/text/web. i really wanted the Dell Streak, but that was a $75/month MINIMUM contract
By my estimation the phone is all-around better than a 3G iPhone.
The Optimus V is a late 2010 phone. My iPhone 3G is from 2008 and hasn't been sold by Apple for a full generation. Your comparison doesn't really make sense.
Not that they're that expensive new. But if portability was easy there would even be an omnipresent resale market for used phones, so even boring phones retain resale value, as is common in other countries.
If you don't want to pay upfront for your TV or laptop, you just use a credit card. And what is even more important here, if you can pay upfront for your TV or laptop, you don't have to pay any interest. There's no reason whatsoever your network provider should provide you a mandatory loan for your phone with completely non-transparent conditions.
I think the point that is trying to be made is that the $500 price tag is influenced by the fact that most people buy the phone subsidized, and never see that price tag. I.e. if there was no phone subsidization, then there would be more competition on the actual price of the phone rather than just on the subsidized price of the phone.
The one issue with T-Mobile is it uses the fairly nonstandard 1870 MHz frequency
Actually, T-Mobile uses the AWS spectrum (in addition to PCS/1900MHz spectrum) which has the uplink around 1700MHz and the downlink around 2100MHz. AT&T and Verizon both have AWS holdings as well as Cricket, MetroPCS, and others. It's standard spectrum and MetroPCS and Cricket are actively using it for service today. AT&T and Verizon seem to be holding it to use for LTE in the future when increased capacity becomes necessary.
Yep. "Hey government, you know that pipe we use to funnel every citizens conversations to you? That was nice for you, huh? We want to engulf another company. Let us. (Also their conversations go in the pipe.)"
> I was hoping LTE would help alleviate this problem as it seemed to be on the road map for 3 out of 4 of the carriers (all but Sprint).
Based on the auction maps, T-Mobile USA had virtually no LTE/700 spectrum space. So AT&T acquiring T-Mo should not change the mix on LTE/700.
The wild card is Frontier, which won the auction for the 'E' block for a large part of the US CONUS. Frontier is somehow interconnected with Dish/Echostar. See the maps here ..
What this guy is saying about the European mobile market is mostly false. In Europe you choose your phone around what carrier you have. It works the same way it does in the US where you have a choice of phones based on what your carrier is offering, the phone is locked to the carrier, and you cannot switch without a penalty. The only difference between US carriers and European ones are that the concept of buying minutes is just coming to Europe and most phone companies have very similar offerings of phones, just one of the reasons that make the mobile market there highly competitive.
No, in broad thrust it is correct. What needs separating out is contracts vs hardware, and prepay vs monthly billing.
Smartphones have historically needed handset subsidies to be attractive to consumers, so they tend to be associated with monthly billing and have locked hardware - but locked for the duration of the contract. After the contract has run out, you are then free to ring up your contract provider and have your phone unlocked. You can then swap out the SIM, unlike what you can do with e.g. a Verizon handset. Alternatively, you can visit your local disreputable phone shop and get your phone unlocked directly (i.e. in violation of your contract).
The hardware itself, because of the SIMs and relative uniformity of radio bands, is switchable. This is key.
You're also wrong about the concept of buying minutes just coming to Europe. Business phone users under contract have long bought minutes. But most phones have been feature phones, and sold in prepay situations, which means that they are unlocked right from the get-go.
FWIW, when I got my first phone, it was an unused one that was rattling around in a drawer. All I needed was a SIM, which was a token purchase and came with call credit greater than its cost; these days, SIMs come free in the delivery box with online mail order purchases, just needing activation.
My experience is limited to Germany, but I had absolutely no problem buying an unlocked Android phone and putting in a prepaid SIM. There are at least a dozen major prepaid providers (resellers of the four networks, but mainly e-plus) offering rather cheap prices (I pay 15 Euro/month for 5GB of data). I can move between carriers at a whim, no contracts.
The majority of people in Germany probably buy subsidized and locked (for the duration of the contract) phones but it is no problem to just walk into your local Best Buy equivalent, buy any phone you like and get your favorite provider to send you a SIM (or buy one directly there). It's not even that much more expensive than getting a subsidized phone (over the lifetime of the contract).
A bit further north, the prices for phones are exactly the same whether over a contract or paid up front; I'm not sure if it's law or just convention. The monthly plan is really just used to lure in customers (and by customers in lieu of a more traditional loan to buy the phone).
This is complete bullshit, and would give AT&T an effective monopoly on GSM based wireless communications in a number of key markets. I say we collectively work to lobby against this deal, as it will be bad for all of us who are based in the US and looking to do ANYTHING in mobile. Imagine if Apple had tried to get their iPhone AppStore arrangement in a single-GSM carrier world?
It's 2011, folks. We can't let oppressive regimes have their way.
You've obviously not been in the mobile handset business.
Very, very few handsets are built for both GSM and CDMA, which is a situation that won't change for quite a while (upcoming next-gen LTE handsets should work on all carriers, but we will see about that).
At the time of the iPhone deal, T-Mobile and AT&T were Apple's only two real options for deployment (Verizon was a negotiating tactic) -- they wanted to build a GSM handset they could deploy globally. The situation would not be any different today. AT&T only won that war because of their dominant position, which allowed them to throw billions at promotions and guarantees -- which, of course, only further worsened T-Mobile's ability to compete (imagine if they had gotten the iPhone instead).
In today's world, if you were Apple, AT&T would once again be able to sit back and dictate terms, as they will be the only real nationwide GSM network in town. It's 1998 all over again, and I don't like it one bit. The other players -- MetroPCS, etc -- are clearly regional / metropolitan plays and do not offer the footprint necessary for an iPhone type device.
As an aside, I would appreciate if your responses were more than one liners.
You think Apple might have launched on T-Mobile, the last-place network?
Nationwide wireless networks are extraordinarily capital-intensive. Absent a massive technological shift --- which may be coming and which AT&T and Verizon are powerless to stop --- there are always going to be a (1) few (2) very large companies providing cell coverage. It may be more expensive to launch a nationwide wireless network than it is to launch an airline.
Meta, responding to your aside: respectfully, no. I'm trying to avoid typing for the sake of typing. I asked a serious question; you answered it; I responded to it with my take. That's how the system should work.
Nothing specific other than the ubiquity of RF in modern consumer electronics designs and off-the-shelf hardware becoming powerful enough to handle software radio with minimal hardware assistance.
The thing that makes the "OMG $0.20 SMS PAY TO TETHER WTF" people isn't going to be a better cell carrier; it's going to be something that obsoletes cell carriers. Look at the RIDICULOUS PHONE you have in your pocket right now; nothing like it even existed in 2005.
There were a lot of similar phones in 2005. The two main differences are app ecosystems and capacitive screens. Both apps and touchscreens existed back then. What we have today isn't magical or revolutional, but just evolution, and slow at that.
My Dell Axim had a 624 MHz CPU, 256 MB, wifi, Bluetooth, 3,7 inch VGA screen, TV-out and two card slots, one that could be used to upgrade it. 2005.
Wow, on a sim-only quit-any-time plan in the UK, I pay £10 per month for unlimited texts, unlimited internet (though tethering is apparently against the TOS) and 250 minutes (I never use these up). And I've never had to pay to receive a text on any network.
Sprint plans with unlimited texting are still much more expensive than similar in Europe. Their 450 Minute "Everything" plan is $50/mo with a 2 year contract. That might be good for the US, but its not good relavitely speaking.
Just as an example, I looked through vodafone UK's 24 month plans and I found 600 minutes and unlimited texting for the equivalent of $32 per month.
It matters because it increases the switching cost for anyone that wants to go to a competitor. You can't bring your phone with you, so you MUST make an upfront commitment of either buying a phone or signing a 2 year contract to get the phone without an upfront cost. When there are multiple companies that provide the network type your phone uses, you can move between them at no cost.
But with only two providers of GSM, you already have emerging cartel pricing dynamics. It's not even as good as airlines (which are also somewhat collusively pricied), where you usually have 5-6 choices for any trip.
More competition is good, but, from a pragmatic perspective, the loss in competition (such as it is) might not outweigh the gain in efficiency for AT&T and T-Mobile subs.
> But with only two providers of GSM, you already have emerging cartel pricing dynamics.
And people already complain about the fact that there are only 2 GSM providers and 2 CDMA providers in the US. Your statement appears to me to be "I don't understand why you are complaining, it's not much worse than what we already have", but people already don't like what we have. This just makes it worse. Between a rock and a hard place, I guess. I completely understand your point, but slowly taking away options and freedoms to slowly turn a free and complacent consumer base into a single group under control of one entity is not a cool thing to do. Look at the current political debate over wiretaps and the PATRIOT act, it's the same idea.
Our choices as consumers and citizens are slowly being whittled away and no one gives a shit because "It won't be much worse than what we already have."
We don't have a small number of wireless providers because of some collusive conspiracy. We have a small number of wireless providers because it costs billions of dollars to create nationwide wireless networks in a country the size of the United States.
I completely understand your frustration at having to choose between two goliath companies for wireless access that works when you get off the plane no matter where you fly. But them's the breaks. What you really want isn't some legal action that increases to 3 from 2 our number of options; what you want is a technological improvement to reduce the cost of providing nationwide wireless access. You can, seriously, go work on that and maybe get somewhere.
Right. It's not the best situation to have one or the other. More would be great in an ideal world, but we have this right now and until you or I can deploy a wide wireless GSM network for a few grand nothing will change.
I was commenting on your point that it's not that big of a deal for AT&T to acquire T-Mobile. It is a big deal because, why it may not be easy (or in fact possible) to stick a third carrier in the middle of this in a completely hypothetical scenario, combining the two carriers in a real life, AT&T just announced it was planning on doing just that scenario is not good for consumers. It is worse than the already less than ideal situation we have right now.
I am saying that despite people's concerns that consolidation in the wireless market will allow AT&T to abuse customers, the wireless market is already so intrinsically consolidated due to capital requirements for entry that AT&T was already asymptotically close to the maximal level of customer abuse it could inflict. This is similar to the argument security people have about the "Microsoft monoculture", as if 2-3 more operating systems were going to be anything more than a speed bump to attackers. One is a monopoly. 2-5 is still a cartel.
Technology lock-in. Admittedly, it's rather pointless for me to argue this, thanks to phones locked to specific carriers, but competition is severely hindered by the fact that I can't just pop in a new SIM from a different GSM carrier. Instead, I have to buy a new handset and, as phones become mobile computing devices, I'll have quite a lot of setup and data porting to do.
And one of the results of that talk was that it would not be beneficial to manufacture two handset models, so they walked away to look at the bigger picture.
T-Mobile customer service has consistently been one of the best customer service lines I have ever dealt with. Back when I had a Sidekick, I would routinely end up connected to a Danger employee sitting _at_ Danger HQ, helping me through teething issues on the early Sidekicks. For over five years, they have been extremely polite, helpful, and available.
From what I've heard, I won't get this kind of service as an AT&T customer. I'm sad to see T-Mobile go, but this merger always was kind of on the horizon.
I also had a Sidekick pretty early on, and was also pleased with the service. However, Sidekick service was a completely different process than for any other phone. I've not been quite as pleased with their service since moving to Android devices, though I haven't felt compelled to leave, even though the network is tiny (but very fast in many high density areas; I sometimes end up using it instead of my 4G from Clear, because 3G from T-Mobile is lower latency...this happened in Austin, for example, even though Clear has strong 4G coverage there), and I often end up roaming when I get off the beaten path. Since I travel full-time, I am often off the beaten path.
Anyway, from a long-time T-Mobile customer perspective, I think AT&T is the worst possible place for T-Mobile to end up, though I guess I'll get a bigger network, eventually. I just hope they don't change the unlimited data plan I currently have. That would suck, and lead to me look for alternatives.
My experience has been quite different. A while ago I was considering switching to T-Mobile so I ordered a SIM, but a few days later I changed my mind. I called T-Mobile to find out how to cancel it, and I was told just to refuse shipment, so I did. Next month I get a bill for a month of service for a SIM card that was never in my position, and thus never even activated. I call up and eventually they dropped the charges (or so I was told). Next month I get a bill for $12. Lather, rinse, repeat. In my experience, the T-Mobile reps, at least those dealing with user accounts, are either unwilling or incapable of performing competent customer service. AT&T, on the other hand, I've had nothing but the best service with. I can literally call them any time of the day and there's someone that answers and takes care of whatever issues I have.
I got T-Mobile because I refused to deal with the fustercluck that is the former SBC Wireless aka The New AT&T. Customer Service will send you to the wrong department sometimes. They keep acquiring companies and they can't coordinate them fast enough. I guess I'm going to have to move to Sprint, I don't care for the whole "doesn't know math" Verizon thing either.
I'm really going to miss T-Mobile policy's like unlimited tethering and cheaper plans with no contract. This is a real shame. Maybe its time to get a contract to be grandfarthered in? A T-Mobile contract on the larger AT&T network may not be so bad.
Edit: I forgot to mention the no fee for tethering or hotspot. I use that enough for it to be very helpful but not to pay an additional fee.
I am certainly going to miss my awesome contract free plan I have right now. 500 minutes, unlimited text, unlimited data (including tethering!) for $60. So far AT&T still doesn't have anything that comes close, their closest would come to around $80-90.
Personally I don't care too much whether my tethering is unlimited or not. I do care whether my provider tries to charge separately for tethering as if it is somehow different from using the same amount of data on the phone itself.
Yep, there goes my PDAnet tethering. There goes the unsubsidized phone pricing for those of us who buy our own phones. There goes the $49 data-only plan. There goes the HSPA+ roll out since AT&T will probably stop this and just move to LTE.
Here comes added congestion from iphone users. Here comes a price increase (customers end up paying for most mergers in the end), etc. Hopefully by the time the deal goes through Verizon will have a full LTE roll-out and decent Android-based phones to take advantage of it.
I'm a little surprised this move is going to even take place. In markets with only a few providers, cell phone prices and caps are terrible. Take Canada for an example. Now the US will follow in Canada's footsteps.
I think the industry is set on killing competitive pricing. The dream of the mobile providers is to convince everyone that a $100-$150 monthly bill with 2+ year lock-ins is normal. Mobile data should be a commodity, not a premium service.
Spectrum is the real problem. There is just not enough space for 3-4 LTE providers in addition to all existing GSM/CDMA carriers. We are solving this problem in Russia too, but with a different solution. One carrier (Yota) is building a shared network of LTE base stations and allows all carriers to sell it. Other carriers have the option to buy 20% of Yota five years down the road. Also, Yota agrees to stop being a carrier itself by that time. It's like energy grid, GPS sattelites or highway system. You better have just one utility and regulate it well.
I guess I don't understand how anti-trust laws work. Didn't they break up "Ma Bell" a few years ago specifically to prevent monopolies? And since then, AT&T bought Cingular, now T-Mobile, and they pretty much have a monopoly on GSM, if not on all mobile phones.
Anti-trust laws are enforced when and only when the political pressure from people who feel like they're being abused by a monopoly exceeds the political pressure from that monopoly's lobbyists.
> And since then, AT&T bought Cingular, now T-Mobile
AT&T didn't buy Cingular per se. In late 2006 AT&T and Bellsouth each owned 50% of Cingular. AT&T got their 50% ownership via SBC. AT&T became sole owner of Cingular by acquiring Bellsouth. That deal closed about Dec 30, 2006 (after many delays getting approval from the FCC). The original iPhone was announced by Apple on January 9, 2007.
Awesome. Now the US will have an even more competitive wireless market, (seriously: which is exactly what is necessary). I'm sure the wireless plans will only get better.
In certain Ethiopic languages, sarcasm and unreal phrases are indicated at the end of a sentence with a sarcasm mark called temherte slaqî or temherte slaq (U+00A1) (¡), a character that looks like the inverted exclamation point.[1]
Well, we have :) or ;) [archaic ;-)] – not that different from other proposed or existing sarcasm or irony marks. The problem is its bad image, using it feels at least to me like hitting people over the head with the sarcasm or irony. I think it shouldn’t be that way.
Expressing sarcasm or irony in a text without any punctuation marks or any other obvious hints is hard and, if done right, brilliant. It’s an art quite unlike expressing sarcasm or irony in speech where we actually do hit people over the head with our delivery. We are just more used to it and it has a better image.
We probably shouldn’t be all that ashamed of hitting other people over the head with our sarcasm and irony in text, at least in casual online discussions and when we don’t have time for brilliance.
I will not give AT&T my money. As a happy T-Mobile user I am strongly against this purchase. I really hate that the US Cellular system is split by Wireless technologies and that my only options for GSM are basically AT&T and T-Mobile. Where will I go? Credo is great, but my phone isn't based on CDMA and I don't want to switch phones just because I switched vendors.
From Friday's HN post "Confessions of an Apple Store Employee":
"We usually have to tell them that if they unlock their iPhone, it won't work. That
it's going to be like a $700 paperweight, and that the antenna will fry itself
on T-Mobile. Of course, that's not true, but that's what we tell them."
Wonder how quickly their tune on that last part will change..
The whole thing will change - because what GSM provider in the US are they going to worry about people unlocking and switching to?
The release says this will "enhance [AT&T's] network capacity". That means T-Mobile isn't likely to exist as a separate thing that's just owned by AT&T. It's pretty certain to be rolled directly into AT&T. It's Cingular 2.0.
I have loved T-Mobile for the 5-odd years I've been on them, after terrible experiences with Sprint and AT&T. I'll be moving to Verizon, but I've heard plenty of horror stories about them, too, and I won't be able to take my GSM Nexus One with me, which is a crying shame.
Agreed. Do you think T-mobile will allow termination of contracts without a early termination fee? I'm guessing probably not, but I'd jump ship if I could avoid the fees.
"Carriers will not modify the material terms of their subscribers’ contracts in a manner that is materially adverse to subscribers without ... allowing subscribers a time period of not less than 14 days to cancel their contracts with no early termination fee."
T-mobile has an excellent policy of easily unlocking phones if you just call and ask. In the worst case they make you wait 3 months into your contract before they do. This policy will be missed.
For the longest time when AT&T bought Cingular, plans that were entered into under Cingular were allowed to continue under AT&T on the same terms. Given how long ago this was, I didn't have data, so I can't speak to what would have happened with a voice/data plan.
However, I can see the same thing not happening with this deal. AT&T really is the antithesis of T-Mo in terms of pricing, flexibility, and customer service.
I've got both (an iPhone and a Nexus One). While 3G coverage is not as readily available on T-Mo as it is on AT&T, there have certainly been many times when it has been more reliable in call quality and drops.
The only upside to this? It is very likely the US will end up with unified GSM frequencies. We will see.
They likely won't take away your plan (and if they tried you'd have the ability to terminate your contract). All carriers have a policy of grandfathering in existing plans when they change theirs (as they did, for example, when they eliminated unlimited data last year). Of course that means you can't get a new phone or change a plan details without submitting to the new terms. If you're willing to live with that, it can be beneficial. Some people are on 5 year old plans and paying $10 or less for unlimited data. Carriers know this, and put up with it because they know the vast majority of their customers are going to re-up the contract regularly.
1. Will I be able to keep the same plan I'm on now? I'm assuming the answer is yes unless I make any changes, at which point they'll try to force me into a new AT&T, which will suck.
2. When can I buy an iPhone for use on my T-Mobile plan? This will still probably a good year away, though I hope it'll be faster.
Only three big companies. There's got to be a point when these mergers hurt competition. I like T-Mobile because it offers cheaper postpaid plans without a contract. I don't think AT&T offers these and their plans are generally more expensive.
My mom is a pretty senior manager at T-Mobile, so when I first read this post I texted her about the acquisition. She said that there were rumors in the company that Sprint was trying to buy them, but she had heard nothing about the AT&T acquisition. Five minutes later she got the news break from the CEO. HN ftw.
Are there any chipsets out there that could support both AT&T (1900) and T-mobile 3G (1700) frequencies? Since one of the main reasons for the merger is for spectrum, it seems that AT&T must be planning on utilizing T-mobile's spectrum in the future to improve reach and reliability, so it would make sense for them to provide phones that support both frequencies.
Many T-mobile phones support old GSM (EDGE) on 850, 900, 1800, and 1900, which overlaps with AT&T. But UMTS (3G) support is on bands 1700 and 2100, neither of which AT&T uses. 2100 is common in Europe.
I don't think this is a good idea for customers. Even Sprint acquiring T-mobile is a bad idea, but this is much worse. At least with Sprint buying T-mobile you'd have 3 equal sized companies, but in this case, I wouldn't be surprised if Sprint eventually gets bought by Verizon, and then Americans will really be in trouble.
That would be unlikely (or at least, less likely) considering that Sprint uses CDMA, while AT&T uses GSM. T-Mobile's network would be easier for AT&T to integrate.
We have a company leveraging their government-granted-duopoly in the broadband marketplace to strengthen its market share in a closely related market (mobile phones). It's a good move for them ... They're stretching their net and once it's across the whole Internet, get ready to pay some real rent...
I don't want to do business with a company that so willingly spied on American citizens. I just renewed a contract on T-Mobile. Now I need to see if I can get out with no penalty, and see who is left to send my business.
Since any telco can legally lie about this, I'm curious why T-Mobile was later added to the initial suit while Qwest was not. I looked around the EFF site but got tired of poking through PDFs and not finding anything to explain that.
Granted, he's been convicted of insider trading and may be a biased source, but I'd say it's a good indicator that Qwest isn't named as a defendant in the EFF suits.
We were Cingular customers, then AT&T bought them. It was the only wireless carrier that offered a good signal where we lived. Slowly over some time after that happened, the signal started to get worse and come and go like with the other carriers we tried previously.
I'm not sure I'm trying to make a point, but I do not know what AT&T did with the Cingular. Did it use it's network? Did they just engulf it to remove the competition? Maybe someone else more knowledgable of this ordeal knows.
How will AT&T use T-Mobile after they acquire them? What becomes of the T-Mobile network that will soon by AT&T's network?
In one way this is terrible. And yet, I'm thinking if the situation gets bad enough, we'll finally see some changes that will forever dethrone these oppressors.
I'm thinking of a data-only phone that puts all of these evil companies out of the equation. All you need to provide data is wireless hotspots, and this can be done by small companies.
The only problem is who owns the fast fiberoptics. These fictional small companies could create a cooperative where they all work together to create their own infrastructure. It has worked for the organic food industry (Organic Valley).
I wonder if this means that the percentage of Android phones that can't sideload direct from the carrier is going to go up. From what I understand, T-mobile doesn't block that, but AT&T does.
AT&T also blocks installation of non-market software on their Android phones, so if you wanted to install a recent build of ConnectBot or whatever, you were SOL. That is, unless your phone can be rooted/reimaged.
This is terrible. I've had T-Mobile for 3 years now, and although I had terrible reception sometimes (granted expecting reception in an underground laboratory might not be so reasonable, but my sprint friends had it), the customer service and voice plans were A+.
ATT screwed me seven years ago and I vowed never to take their business again (from what I hear their customer service is still not much better), so I guess if this goes through it's goodbye T-Mobile.
I wonder how AT&T acquiring T-Mobile is going to affect Mobile Marketing companies in the US. Will Mobile Marketing companies be required to abide by T-Mobile's double Opt-In software policy or will AT&T keep its own Opt In policy which doesn't require a double Opt In for SMS subscribers? This should be interesting to see how this merger unfolds over the next 12 months.
I might be in the minority but I just don't see this as a good deal. It reminds me of when Wachovia bought Golden West in a forced effort to seek growth.
ATT's stated desire to catch up to Verizon while losing customers seems like an internal issue that just can't be bought away.
On a personal note. I left Sprint for Nextel years ago to see it bought. And I left ATT in November for T-Mobile and well....
Yes, just as in any other mega-merger all the various regulatory agencies will have their take at it. AT&T will likely end up making large concessions to get this pushed through.
This is bad. In terms of freedom, T-Mobile was the only large carrier to oppose warrant-less wiretapping of Americans. In terms of cost, T-Mobile offered the best non-contract prices, and I could use my Nexus One or iPhone on their network for a reasonable price.
I guess this means that I am going to have to switch to Sprint. I really like T-Mobile. They are a great company and I loved their service and pricing. It is going to be sad to not have T-Mobile in the states anymore.
This is devastating news to me. With TMO, my sister and I can add on my parents for free, get unlimited tethering, and unlimited family texting for $10. Knowing AT&T, I probably won't be able to keep this plan.
As a new T-Mobile customer who recently switched from AT&T this saddens me. I finally thought I found a decent provider with their Even More Plus plans. So much for choice and competition.
T-Mobile 3G in San Francisco is fairly good. I tether with it all the time, but T-Mobile uses a different frequency for their 3G so your AT&T phone can hop onto T-Mobile Edge network but not 3G, unfortunately. Same thing in the other direction. I don't think any manufacturers make phones that can do both frequencies for 3G.
I've tried it across Oklahoma City and Dallas, and I got brilliant quality. (Except for a residential area in Farmers Branch (Dallas), but that's kind of a cell dead zone, as far as I can tell- Sprint gets horrible quality there too)
The one issue with T-Mobile is it uses the fairly nonstandard 1870 MHz frequency. I don't know of any other carrier that does (anywhere). I assume this is because AT&T has the rights to the more common frequencies in the relevant markets? I wonder what technical and regulatory hurdles stand in their way for switching T-Mobile infrastructure to also do the "standard" frequencies.
Wireless really is a mess in the US. Europe and Australia have really benefited from choosing one technology (GSM). In the US you pick your carrier then pick your phone. Elsewhere you basically pick your phone then pick your carrier. Don't like you carrier? Swap your SIM. Problem solved. The US really suffers (from the consumer point of view) by this lack of carrier mobility.
It's my theory that US wireless is so expensive at least in part due to it being the most balkanized market in the developed world (and possibly the entire world).
I was hoping LTE would help alleviate this problem as it seemed to be on the road map for 3 out of 4 of the carriers (all but Sprint). Now I guess it's still 2 of 3. Sprint is still the odd man out with the (basically failed) WiMax technology.
I can see this acquisition facing some serious regulatory and legislative scrutiny.