Niether; its a non-issue. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. All cellphone companies, and all car insurance companies are the same. So, its funny that they're always trying to one-up each other in their commercials.
"Being powerful is like being a lady; if you have to tell people you are, you aren't". -Margaret Thatcher.
^The same thing applies to companies who claim to be the best.
Anti-trust anyone? Oh wait, those laws aren't enforced anymore.
__________________ Land of the free, home of the brave...
Do you think we will ever be saved?
In this land of dreams find myself sober...
Wonder when will it'll all be over...
Living in a void when the void grows colder...
Wonder when it'll all be over?
Will you be laughing when it's over?
Lol, there not all the same. T-Mobile has better customer service and pricing options compared to the other carriers. It's phone selection isn't as great as Verizon but it makes up in pricing for those who don't mind the hardware. The reason cell phones have boomed in the last 11 years+ is due to competition from the number of carriers all trying to one-up each other. This merger essentially eliminates the 4th largest carrier and the only other GSM network. In most of the world, they run on a GSM network. As a T-Mobile customer, I was able to get the code to unlock my phone with no trouble at all. Went to Vietnam and popped a SIM card I bought their and it worked like a charm. Additionally, you could import unlock phones that are not offered in the US. You had the choice of T-Mobile and AT&T. That will no longer be possible because AT&T will be the only GSM network for costumers.
Ideally, I would force cellphone companies to follow the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and stop the merger but also stop tying physical phones to purchased plans. This would limit the market share that any single company could have and also create universal standards of design and capability to allow any customer to purchase and use any cellphone plan with any cellphone. This would mean higher prices for phones since it would be harder for providers to offer exclusive bundles but it would also result in more competition, hence cheaper cell plans and more freedom of choice for consumers.
__________________ Land of the free, home of the brave...
Do you think we will ever be saved?
In this land of dreams find myself sober...
Wonder when will it'll all be over...
Living in a void when the void grows colder...
Wonder when it'll all be over?
Will you be laughing when it's over?
So you're a T-Mobile user? This is AT&T we're talking about. If you're lucky to escape the data plan, likely you're still going to be hit by increased rates. They're not going to keep the pricing option of T-Mobile that's going to be in competition with their own pricing. Essentially it matters because AT&T will now be the only one big carrier that your iPhone can run on so you can't escape the rate increase. And if you move to another network, it's still going to cost you set up fees and a new phone because that iPhone will be useless on the CDMA networks. All our wallets will be hit because of this. Well be looking at an increase of $10 and up (depending on the type of user) per month imo.
The monopoly of the GSM network in America is sadly coming. Will be sending in my complaint to the FCC and T-Mobile of this obvious monopoly of the GSM network. I'll stick around for a bit to see what happens with the merge but likely will move onto Verizon. It's competition that has made the cell phone market thrive with it's various plans and cool new phones we currently have enjoyed. Mergers are like this will impede on what's best for consumers. We're down to just a few big players now.
__________________
Last edited by WhiteWitchKing on Mar 21st, 2011 at 04:45 AM
It doesn't apply in the most direct way possible: Verizon is and will still continue to be a major competitor to AT&T, directly undercutting AT&T's ability to become a monoply especially when AT&T and Verizon's markets will be so overlapped that they will be competing for just about every single customer.
Additionally, as the article points out, the prices will likely drop as competition and markets are even more "heatedly" overlapped.
The Sherman's Anti-Trust law will start to be enforced IF AT&T and Verizon make non-compete agreements meaning IF they agree to withdraw from certain markets and "hand it over" to one side or the other. THAT, my friend, would be a violation of the anti-trust law. Guess what? That already happens with our ISPs and gas-station chains.
Here are two examples of a real anti-trust violations happening with two different industries:
Gas stations: Quick Trip, a very large and successful gas station chain in several states in the midwest, has a non-compete agreement with 7-11. They have made an agreement not to overlap each other because they would directly compete with each other if they did. The only "real" compeitition" 7-11 is seeing, because Quick Trip has agreed not to expand west, is from Oncue and Shell gas stations. At that, they are so few and far-between, it's not really true competition. However, due to the fact that the majority of gas stations "west" of Quick Trip are NOT 7-11, it is not seen as an anit-trust violation when it quite clearly is one.
ISPs: ALL over the US there are regional monoplies with ISPs and cable service providers. It is so absurdly "regionally monopolized" that individuals really only have the choice of one cable provider. They are able to get away with this because of Satellite companies existing. However, Hughes (DirecTV) and Echostar (Dish Network) tried to merge back in 03 or 04 and THEY WERE REJECTED because the government claimed that they were pretty much it in satellite TV and it would be an anti-trust violation. Sounds VERY fishy when they would still directly compete with each and every regional cable monopoly if they merged but, yet, the cable companies are NOT forced to end their regional non-compete agreements.
If it were not for Verizon and AT&T pushing out with their fiber networks, forcing at LEAST one other ISP and cable TV provider into the monopolized regions, there would be no hope. Why do Verizon and AT&T push out into the regional ISP and Cable monopolies? Because they are bigger and they simply do not give a flying **** about backroom agreements made between two different ISPs: They want customers and they want all of the market.
GSM is a 2g technology. Not only are we "steeped" in the 3g technologies, in accordance with the 3GPP plans, we are working on the roll-out of the 4g networking technologies.
What is GSM? It is a data multiplexing technology. What is 3G? The same. What is 4G (For Verizon) it is OFDMA. OFDMA would be the equivalent of GSM...in terms of generational algorithms.
To put it more simply: all it requires is a 1900mhz transceiver. The multiplexing schemes, from there, are just "drivers." If they phone is capable of communications at that frequency, it can be used on GSM IF it is authorized and has the proper "drivers" to do so.
Is GSM a requirement for a good wireless carrier? Currently, yes. In the next couple of years? No. It's like saying you don't want to buy an HD TV because your black and white is perfect: it's an old technology.
If your complaint is about "behind the times" countries that are using 2G technologies, then just keep the phone and use the old phone when you travel.
Android phones can be used with multiple carriers, for the most part. They just require the proper frequency abilities and a SIM card.
In other words, you can have your cake and eat it to. It is only the Apple phones, due to agreements Apple has with AT&T and Verizon that prevent it from being used on other carriers. However, I "hear" of people getting the phones to work with other carriers.
Additionally, what you suggested already exists. Some phones are "universal" phones and some phones are exclusive. Now that you know that that exists, what do you think about it? Since you have what you want, does that make you happier?
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Mar 21st, 2011 at 10:07 AM
But lots of stuff is going to happen in that space anyways, so who knows...
Part of the problem so far has been that they actually have physically different networks, you can't use a GSM phone on a CDMA network and vice versa. Perhaps that'S going to get better as LTE seems to become the de-facto 4G standard.
Generally a problem in the US is the prevalence of contract/phone bundles, Google tried to target that with the Nexus One and it didn't work out. But yeah, that is likely something that will change as mobile internet will become more and more important. ATT buying T-Mobile USA may have been a blow to that for now though, as T-Mobile was more available to innovation as the underdog.
It's NEVER good when any two large corporations merge. Employees will lose jobs as departments are consolidated. Consumers will suffer via fewer choices and less market competition. Even the shareholders will likely see little benefit. The only ones who ever get anything out of something like this are a very few members of the very top management.
The Sherman Anti trust Act? What a joke.
__________________ There are more humans in the world than rats.
I tend to agree. They are both large competitors and doing this can only lose jobs. Competition is the key to good prices. If you look at Canada there is a real lack of competition in the cell market and we get screwed.
KMC Community Forums
Mar 21st, 2011 01:03 AM
