Sprint No Longer Sure About T-Mobile Bid
Well, it's clear...
The above statement verifies my thoughts all along. The only companies to remain in control of the country's wireless industry, are VZW and AT&T. The two have been able to manipulate the industry by leverage of financial pork for merge after merge until they have consumed almost every last tiny carrier. Now that the realization is in view to help quell the insanity, no other large merge will be allowed.
Now it is Sprint or TMO to remain distant third and fouth without ever having the chance to grow. For those that think four major carriers is the ideal scenerio, you will have allowed the two largest to win and never be ...
(continues)
T-Mobile is grabbing customers at a record pace. Most of them are not from Sprint. They are forcing AT&T and Sprint to act and eventually Verizon will as well in order to retain customers.
There is enough spectrum out there to support 4 carriers if allocated properly. Dish is sitting on a ton of it.
If T-Mobile continues to add 1 million per quarter we still have a ways to go before they get to Death Star or Big Red numbers. If those two carriers start losing customers over that time it becomes a real 3 way race.
Unfortunately I don't see Sprint in that scenario above. Allowing Sprint to acquire T-Mobile just for the sake of customers won't fix the cu...
(continues)
Now, let's throw in T-Mobile buying out contracts. How do you think Q1 will look? Will Verizon finally start to slow the adds in addition to AT&T? We shall see.
What's incorrect are the people in their little cell phone kiosks trying to explain that an equipment installment plan is the same as a service contract. I have 4 lines of service and 0 EIPS. I can leave at will.
Next he'll tell me that if I buy my phone on a credit card it's the same as a service contract because I have to pay back American Express.
DarkStar said:
Its a contract for the phone. Maybe not for the service but it is still a contract.
A well known industry writer certainly thinks so.
http://bgr.com/2014/02/04/t-mobile-no-contract-bs/ »
AJ
acdc1a said:
I suppose you didn't bother to read the comments on the article you sent...
I did read many of the comments. That people do not like the writer's perspective does not change the point of the article. And I will take veteran industry writer/editor Zach Epstein's opinion over anonymous comments from a mostly under informed peanut gallery. The same goes for the comment section here.
AJ
If you spend a lot of time there I'm sure you know that Brad Reed has reported on T-Mobile's killing of the wireless contract.
A blog like BGR isn't journalism, it's click bait for advertising clicks. If you believe what you read there, Apple is both dominating the mobile market and losing share and the same can be said about Samsung.
The reporters seem to contradict each other when it comes to reporting. Each digging deep to find biased information hidden in corridors. Then taking this info to elevate their personal favorites. I trust no "opinionated" editorial. To find the relevancy of an article, one must sift through the news articles that are hot topic and are directed towards constructive views. It doesn't matter what we feel about Zach or Brad. It is up to us consumers to weed the garden and view the soil.
Zach has a legitimate point on TMO's landscaped marketing. A consumer is still held financially responsible for paying down a commitment made at point of sale when speading the payments out. In some cases, i...
(continues)
Contract: a written or spoken agreement, esp. one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law.
The installment agreement is just as binding as a cellular agreement or contract if you will. A matter of fact when you fill out the information for a contract on Verizon or AT&T or Sprint it doesn't say contract on the letterhead. It says consumer agreement.
Please tell me how T-mobile has gotten rid of contracts when the installment agreement is a de facto contract?
If you enter into an equipment installment plan, pay off your equipment and LEAVE. Better yet, do the responsible thing and don't buy what you can't afford.
Until recently if you entered Sprint or Verizon (apparently not AT&T) even with your own phone you had to sign a service agreement, go prepaid, or accept the 1 plan with 200 minutes that Sprint had available month to month.
acdc1a said:
Until recently if you entered Sprint or Verizon (apparently not AT&T) even with your own phone you had to sign a service agreement, go prepaid, or accept the 1 plan with 200 minutes that Sprint had available month to month.
That is where you are wrong. You have always been able to buy a phone outright or bring in your own phone ,as long as it is compatible with that service, and not have a contract.
No one is forced into a contract but $600 for a phone is rather expensive and hard to do.
Now on the back in the fine print, what does it say? PLANS REQUIRE A 24 MONTH SERVICE AGREEMENT.
I sure hope you're not in the wireless industry because you show very little knowledge of what the competition is doing.
But I have helped many people on all the companies start a new line of service without a contract because they paid full retail price for a phone.
I have first hand knowledge. You obviously don't work in the industry.
John B.
John B.
Slammer said:
At the risk of ruining our agreement record, I must disagree. Lol. While TMO's credential standing for adding new subs appears "promising", I fear the clientele it is attracting with these new promotions, is exactly the type that VZW and AT&T could care less about.
T-Mobile has a history of courting sub prime consumers. But the "uncarrier" strategy is also surely pulling away prime consumers from the other three big operators. The recent quarterly numbers bear that out. However, the longer term issue may be retaining those subs.
The "uncarrier" perks sound great to most wireless consumers, and they will attract people for whom the T-Mobile native and roaming coverage limitations are un...
(continues)
Not being employed within the wireless industry has its disadvantages. Not fully recognizing the type of clientele migrating from one carrier to another, is one of these shortcomings. And of course your insight to the industry functions is truly masterful. I do, however, feel VZW and ATT agree with your above logic and may perceive TMO's strategy as more liquidity. Short term loss may then equate to non-threatening from those perched on top.
John B.
If that were the case, AT&T and to a lesser extent Verizon wouldn't be responding. The fact that they are should tell you everything you need to know.
As far as the sub-primes go, T-Mobile still has a deposit for the credit challenged. I don't see them taking the prepaid, or credit challenged customers. Frankly prepaid has been competitive rate-wise for years. They're taking high value, contract customers. Churn could be a problem for those who frequently travel to the sticks. I see that as T-Mobile's biggest issue right now.
This forum is closed.