T-Mobile & AT&T merger - I'm quoted in the Denver Post

[lupi]

i'd rather have them go to sprint them, at least still gives the apperance of 3 carriers.

and now that I had time to read the article,

Sprint reportedly also was interested in buying T-Mobile USA from Deutsche Telekom AG, a merger analysts said would have made more sense from a consumer standpoint as it would competitively bring Sprint closer to AT&T and Verizon.

 

[Thegonagle]

I'm opposed because I believe that AT&T doesn't need T-Mobile's spectral licenses, much less their relatively small network, in order to properly invest in and continuously improve their own wireless network (something Verizon Wireless, BTW, seems to have consistently excelled at for its entire history).

If there is a need for spectrum, T-Mobile isn't the only other company that has it (nor are Sprint and Verizon). I'm sure arrangements can be made for more spectrum, and coverage can be infilled with more towers/antennas for more capacity.

I believe that the AT&T commercial touting the merger as catalyst to bringing mobile broadband to whatever percentage of the US population, "including many rural areas and small towns" is complete and total BS. I think they outbid other suitors primarily to eliminate a competitor.

The proposed merger will be a bad deal for all consumers.

An aside:

Does anybody remember the olden days (the pre-digital era), when you had the choice between cellular carrier "A," and cellular carrier "B," and cell phone bills were large.

We're slowly but surely trending back in that direction, and our bills are on the rise again.

In my area, one of the two carriers choices became part of Verizon Wireless in 2001, and the other one? Yep, you guessed it: AT&T Wireless.

I just thought the irony was amusing.

 

[akugami]

I don't care about the merger. You guys want cheaper phone plans? Have the government ban those god f'n damned two year contracts. Seriously. Ban all cell phone contracts. Places like Hong Kong and other territories where they have to pay full price for a cell phone but have no phone contracts actually have cheaper cell phone bills. That's because they don't have to pay a monthly plan that has a subsidization cost built in. For many of us, they can get an el'cheapo or a decent second hand phone and save big bucks on cell phone bills.

The only reason I get a new phone and renew my contract is because I'm already paying a subsidized cost for a new phone whether I renew my contract or not. Might as well renew my contract and get a new phone. It's not like the plans are any cheaper if I bring my own phone or am out of the contract.

 

[badb0y]

I always thought your name stood for private message lol.

 

[Pliablemoose]

I don't care about the merger. You guys want cheaper phone plans? Have the government ban those god f'n damned two year contracts. Seriously. Ban all cell phone contracts. Places like Hong Kong and other territories where they have to pay full price for a cell phone but have no phone contracts actually have cheaper cell phone bills. That's because they don't have to pay a monthly plan that has a subsidization cost built in. For many of us, they can get an el'cheapo or a decent second hand phone and save big bucks on cell phone bills.

The only reason I get a new phone and renew my contract is because I'm already paying a subsidized cost for a new phone whether I renew my contract or not. Might as well renew my contract and get a new phone. It's not like the plans are any cheaper if I bring my own phone or am out of the contract.

Yep, and make carriers accept different FCC approved/compatible phones on their network. Between the policies of the CDMA carriers and incompatible phones/networks, the US market is hopelessly under control of the carriers. And that doesn't appear to be changing any time soon or ever for that matter. What do we get? A POS Android on Virgin Mobile?

Where's the government looking out for consumers in any of this? Nowhere...