AT&T Responds to Justice Department Suit

Offering new phones as innovative, is not ultimately a carrier feat but rather a boost, recepticle or hub for obtaining the said innovation. In the case of the Apple iPhone, there are speculations that carriers did turn down the iPhone. However, more credible sources say the iPhone was offered to only AT&T for two reasons:

1) Apple likes control and offering to multiple carriers could have caused a loss in specific direction of the base objective for their vertically integrated operation. A tighter reign on the product. This was a revolutionary product for the industry and Apple wanted no confusion. Simple and profitable.

2) is highly logical. Offer the new product on what standard was the most worldwidely used. GSM technology for wider consumption while retaining that reign. Android was in infancy stage and Apple had no worries of having to be on another carrier.

There are too many places you can freely look up for spectrum info, but I found this one as may be interesting to you.

http://m.cnet.com/Article.rbml?nid=20058494&c id=null&bcid=&bid=-266

Carriers around the world have known for years that the future of communications would eventually be through data and wireless broadband. While other carriers were simultaneously upgrading their networks to ready for what is coming,, AT&T chose to sit on their Assets so to speak and ignore the inevitable while basking in revenue and profits. I will say that there was really no telling how the data consumption would affect the network. However, AT&T's persistent lack of motivation respectable upgrades didn't help the matter. It was only when the exclusivity was due to end, that AT&T "promised" upgrades and fixes. What about doing this anyway since everyone else was already preparing before the iPhone?

Agreed that Tmobile was the first to launch a 4G marketing scheme to entice potential subscribers. However, the point of this topic is AT&T claiming a loss of innovation. What is the loss of this without Tmobile? What if Tmobile was in a more satisfiying position with itself? Does that mean AT&T is incapable of working with engineers to facilitate and innovate for network enhancements? More innovative price plans? Accessories for products and services? There's far more to innovation than phones. Acquiring Tmobile is a purchase for more control: not innovation.

If AT&T does succeed in this merge, it appears AT&T will have a 52% share in the market with Verizon at 33%. These two carriers would have all control of industry pricing. Any MVNOs dependant on reselling these services, will be affected by the pricing these two conjure up with little other choice. We need more choice. The merge with Tmobile would be a huge loss in that choice. Sprint is viable but won't have the power to sustain a threat to an 80% share. Contrary to belief, Sprint would eventually have to raise prices to stay afloat. Without choice, what governs price in an industry with little regulations.

John B.