FCC Says No Rubber Stamp for AT&T / T-Mobile Merger
Verizon
Also in the US it doesn't matter if the carrier is GSM or CDMA. The technology they use to give you a wireless signal doesn't matter.
If you want to make that argument then we must consider FiOS a monopoly because they are the only ISP using fiber.
Alltel was not a national carrier, it did not have coverage even in the northeast, which is one of if not the largest in terms of subscribers.
Yes it does matter what technology a carrier has in the USA it is one of the main arguements against this merger.
FIOS is not the only ISP using fiber, in fact their main competitor also does use fios.
Please stop making up facts.
www.cellularmaps.com/at/at_ww.shtml
That is a national carrier.. congrats on being an idiot.
No it doesn't matter what technology the carrier is using because here in the USA carriers are allowed to go with any technology they want. GSM is not classed as a market and CDMA and GSM carriers compete for the same customers. What arguement can be made against only having only one GSM carrier? Customers cannot leave with their devices to another carrier? You can't use GSM phones on CDMA networks and CDM...
(continues)
lollipop said:
Alltel was a National carrier. to claim otherwise is vastly ignorant of the facts. As for your claims with are widely off base here is Alltel's coverage map and here is how much they covered with their North American Freedom plan.
www.cellularmaps.com/at/at_ww.shtml
That is a national carrier.. congrats on being an idiot.
Hold on. Before you call someone else an idiot, do you truly know the facts?
First, the Alltel North American Freedom coverage map included native + roaming coverage. Almost any carrier can appear to have national coverage if roaming footprint is included. While Alltel had extensive rural native coverage, that belied the fact that Alltel had relatively li...
(continues)
Verizon STILL should not have been allowed to break its agreement NOT to touch Alltel, but money talks. Also note that they made damned sure to get that deal approved while the FCC was still Republican controlled. There is nothing to suggest that this deal won't eventually pass muster even with the Democrats in control though. I've got my fingers crossed. We'll see...
lollipop said:
Alltel was a National carrier... their network was BIGGER then verizon's.
Also in the US it doesn't matter if the carrier is GSM or CDMA. The technology they use to give you a wireless signal doesn't matter.
If you want to make that argument then we must consider FiOS a monopoly because they are the only ISP using fiber.
Not true, att uverse is a fiber network as well
And still it doesn't matter as they are listed offering the same services as cable and satalite.
lollipop said:
Alltel was a National carrier.
How could Alltel have been a national carrier when it didn't have native coverage in at least eight of the 10 largest markets in the US?
A national carrier does not have to cover every market in the us. I suggest you read what a regional carrier and a national carrier is.
edzero said:
why was it ok for verizon to buy Alltel and jump past at&t as the nations largest wireless carrier...but at&t is getting such a hassle about this?
That the seemingly high school or community college educated call center reps, in/direct salespersons, and phone fetishists who populate this site cannot advance beyond posturing & cheering for their carrier of choice to beat the others and be #1 -- as if this were some sporting event -- continually disappoints me.
AJ
I can say that I am entirely for Sprint doing well, because they cut my pay check. If they make more money, then I can expect to see higher 401k payouts, bigger raises, and in general a happier company to work for and with.
I do not wish ill on any provider out there, I believe some ideas are misguided, and disagree with some of the changes the industry makes.
I'd like to think most people on here are that way.
There are a lot of people who would just love to see Sprint fail. That makes me a sad panda. I don't want to be out of a job.
For the record, I do work in a call center. I also have a degree from a Top 25 Private Liberal Arts University. Times are just hard. dont make assumptions about the people on the other end of the phone.
I work for one company and have service with another. That doesnt mean my opinion on this merger is any less valid than anyone else's. It is people like you who judge and act as though you are above the rest of us, and know how to do our jobs, who create disgruntled and unhappy customer service representatives, which only results in what you call "bad" customer service.
Im sorry, I sit for 8 hours a day 6 days a week listening to you complain about how you went over your minutes or we ...
(continues)
AJ
It's not just about spectrum, maybe in the top 3 reasons, but definitely not number 1.
AJ's highly educated point was to utilize what they have efficiently before asking for more. Not one bit of of thier massive purchase has been used to reach this.
Their intent is to suck dry every little bit of viable spectrum so no other competition ever enter the domain.
John B
They're telling the Government it is to improve quality of service, that's total crap. They have the spectrum already. So if anything it can't be the number one reason, that's a blatant lie.
That's what I was meaning.
T-mobile was a dying company and that is a fact. The fact that DT previous to the merger told them to make a profit or all funds are cut speaks volumes to where t-mo was.
Anyone that treats this as some football game, is a detriment to themselves in a consumer publicly funded market. These are the same people that complain that gas at the pumps go up at will and when they do slowly come down, it is never at the lower level it was prior to the rise.
Is this how we want our communications industry to end up?
John B.
This forum is closed.