US Government, Sprint Sue to Block AT&T/T-Mobile Merger
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 6th Sep 2011 21:57 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless In the US wireless market, AT&T is currently attempting to buy T-Mobile to create one heck of a behemoth wireless provider. While earlier this week the US government already filed a lawsuit to block the merger, citing antitrust concerns, US carrier Sprint has now also filed a lawsuit to block the merger.
E-mail Print r 1   · Read More · 35 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/je8
Thread beginning with comment 488963
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: So ...
by kaiwai on Fri 9th Sep 2011 07:00 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: So ..."
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

Okay, that's awesome. Are they able to force you into a specific plan if you want them to subsidize it?


The amount you receive in subsidies relates to the length of the contract and the plan that you're on - for example if you sign up for a 24 month plan at $60 per month your subsidy will be higher than someone on a contract for 12months at $20 per month. IIRC the most Vodafone did as a subsidy was $200 - so it depends on how much freedom you're willing to give up.

What really sucks about this is the fact that, even if you don't buy your phone from the carrier and it's not subsidized, if you want service on any of the major carriers you have to sign into at least a two year contract anyway. Personally, I hate contracts. My view is that if you're so certain of the awesomeness of your service, you don't need to hold me hostage. Of course, all the cel carriers hear suck giant hairy donkey balls, and they're probably not as confident about their service as they claim.


For me I purchased an iPhone outright from Apple then put it on prepaid - I've done contract a couple of times and my usage was so sporadic that it made having a contract a little pointless. If they had a 'year contract' where there was minutes and data over a whole year rather than month by month then it might work for me since some months I use it heavily then other months I barely use it.

Not a bad idea. The reason I brought it up with CDMA though is that I've not found any CDMA phone that supports both sets of frequencies, where as I can think of several GSM phones off the top of my head that are true quad-band GSM/WCDMA/HSDPA and will fully work on any carrier regardless of the frequency set it uses.


Many vendors offer quad frequency band phones already so it would be just a matter of adding more support but I have a feeling there will be outrage by handset vendors as the current status quo allows segmentation of their product line - if you want to move from one carrier to another ka-ching! a new phone is needed to support xyz's frequencies rather than just a simple replacement of a SIM. The situation with LTE isn't looking much better as Verizon and AT&T have said their networks will not be compatible - that is, end users able to grab a phone chuck in a SIM from their chosen carrier and hit the ground running.

Times like this is when government need to intervene and say, "all you LTE vendors need to be on the same page using the same technology and allow people to purchase phones independent of carriers and be able to purchase a SIM without a hefty contract.

No argument from me. The cel market hasn't benefitted from competition in the same way that our land line market did. I think the only reason they do get away with it is that most of the average joe's in this country think the world ends outside our boarders and have no idea how much they're getting gangraped as compared to other countries. I've asked people why they're willing to pay so much and their answers are usually along the lines of "Well, that's just how it's always been." The really fucked up thing is that people have become so phone-obsessed lately that they'll sacrifice actual necessities to have the latest smartphones when they don't need them. You don't need a smartphone if all you do is call and text, but people get them for the shiny factor and I'm not just referring to iPhones either. Before you ask, I do use a smartphone, but then again I do a lot more than call and text with it.


I've seen it here in NZ - people spending thousands on the latest gadgets but don't have the money to provide a decent lunch or a rain coat for their kid. We live in a strange time where people have warped priorities.

Honestly, I suspect that Apple didn't really know what to do when entering this market. They were new to it, they just wanted to get their product out there, and AT&T was the only carrier that would let Apple have their way as far as the software (no custom firmware images, etc). What does an unlocked iPhone cost over there? To get one imported here (a true factory unlock, not a jailbreak/ultrasn0w unlock) usually will run you at least $800 USD for the current generation which, even at Apple prices, is way too much for a smartphone, especially one that isn't top of the line. Further, if you do import it, you'll get no warranty on it. As I said, I've no idea why Apple won't just sell the things directly now that their agreement has expired. As far as I know, there's nothing stopping them. Then again, most of Apple's decisions these days have left me wondering if they don't have some drunken monkeys on the board.


See the strange thing is in NZ Telecom and Vodafone doesn't very little branding to their phones - besides the splash screen and a few address book entries the phones are pretty much kept vanilla. I really have to wonder to what benefit these carriers have wasting so much money on branding their phones when they could scrap that whole idea, save the money and sell the end user a phone without all the bullshit.

Reply Parent Score: 2