AT&T Fires Up 3G Across Vermont
Do people still live there???
Clearly this was an acquisition that was smartly chosen. Buy a small company that already has towers, put in new radios, acquire 3G licenses from the FCC and bam your good to go.
mist668 said:
Not really, you have to think of it this way. Update/maintain 3g and add new footprint at the same time. They could sit and add more 3g in cities that already had it, but what about the one's that do not.
Clearly this was an acquisition that was smartly chosen. Buy a small company that already has towers, put in new radios, acquire 3G licenses from the FCC and bam your good to go.
Sorry, but the U.S. doesn't have separate licenses for 3G like Europe does. AT&T wouldn't have acquired all of Unicel in Vermont (especially the southern portion, where Verizon would have kept the A side), had the legislators in that state not put pressure on the FCC to make Verizon divest the network to a ...
(continues)
Kayslay34 said:
J/K but dont you think they should fix there 3g issues in like say NY before they start adding more 3g?
They can't just stop laying out 3G while New York is being "fixed". 3G generates far too much money for them.
Kayslay34 said:
Its not just NY, i think the way i worded it makes people think i am focusing on NY. I am talking about major cities in general where att has a hundred thousand plus customers. I am not saying don't expand but please fix your issue.. Its like having a car with a bad transmission but instead of fixing it we throw some rims on it.
It's either fix the problem or lose customers.
This forum is closed.