Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AT&T to Acquire T-Mobile USA for $39 Billion

businesswire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 211 posts

Re: AT&T to Acquire T-Mobile USA for $39 Billion

#141

Post by tesseract »

tptacek wrote: post #33
cletus wrote: post #30

It's a natural fit for AT&T to buy T-Mobile. They both 3G GSM (UMTS) technology. T-Mobile is probably better in some key markets than AT&T, most notably New York (City). The one issue with T-Mobile is it uses the fairly nonstandard 1870 MHz frequency. I don't know of any other carrier that does (anywhere). I assume this is because AT&T has the rights to the more common frequencies in the relevant markets? I wonder wh…

Even if you could simply swap your SIM card to swap providers in the US, the majority of customers would not suddenly become portable; people don't want to pay $500 up front for a phone, even though they're paying more down the line.

> people don't want to pay $500 up front for a phone, even though they're paying more down the line.

As far as I can tell, T-Mobile is (was?) the only major US carrier to even offer the option of buying a phone up front and then getting a month-to-month plan that costs less than the equivalent 2-year contract. That is what I use and all told it is going to save me about $200 over two years vs. a subsidy based plan. But if hypothetically my monthly rate were the same as what it would be on a 2-year contract, as it would be on AT&T, why wouldn't I take advantage of the subsidized phones (apart from lock-in)?

OK, there are prepaid plans, but the choice of phones (especially smartphones) is limited compared to what's available on postpaid.

Re: AT&T to Acquire T-Mobile USA for $39 Billion

#142

Post by cosmicray »

cletus wrote: post #30

It's a natural fit for AT&T to buy T-Mobile. They both 3G GSM (UMTS) technology. T-Mobile is probably better in some key markets than AT&T, most notably New York (City). The one issue with T-Mobile is it uses the fairly nonstandard 1870 MHz frequency. I don't know of any other carrier that does (anywhere). I assume this is because AT&T has the rights to the more common frequencies in the relevant markets? I wonder wh…

> I was hoping LTE would help alleviate this problem as it seemed to be on the road map for 3 out of 4 of the carriers (all but Sprint).

Based on the auction maps, T-Mobile USA had virtually no LTE/700 spectrum space. So AT&T acquiring T-Mo should not change the mix on LTE/700.

The wild card is Frontier, which won the auction for the 'E' block for a large part of the US CONUS. Frontier is somehow interconnected with Dish/Echostar. See the maps here ..

http://www.cellularmaps.com/700_auction.shtml

Re: AT&T to Acquire T-Mobile USA for $39 Billion

#143

Post by turbodog »

nola wrote: post #93
akgerber wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smartphones are only getting cheaper. My smartphone is an LG Optimus V, which was $150 without a contract (but it's bound to Virgin Mobile, a prepaid carrier). By my estimation the phone is all-around better than a 3G iPhone. Obviously I probably got the phone somewhere near at-cost (considering how hard the RadioShack employees push you against buying it) but smartphones will be dirt cheap soon enough.

I've been having problems with my Optimus V through Virgin Mobile. It crashes in call (total power off); data availability hasn't been stable (I would say about once a week I have significant issues where I won't be able to use email, a browser, etc. for the entire day); maps/GPS is iffy; I think there are some interface design flaws.* I used to have an iPhone 3G. I thought it was great. I switched to VM for the plan…

I also have the VM Optimus V and the main issue I see is losing data connectivity occasionally then the phone not being able to get back onto the data network. However, turning airplane mode on then off usually gets things working again.

Re: AT&T to Acquire T-Mobile USA for $39 Billion

#144

Post by ugh »

jedsmith wrote: post #98
mirkules wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whoever figures out a way to convey sarcasm in text is going to make billions

In certain Ethiopic languages, sarcasm and unreal phrases are indicated at the end of a sentence with a sarcasm mark called temherte slaqî or temherte slaq (U+00A1) (¡), a character that looks like the inverted exclamation point. [1] Make the check out to my name. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony_punctuation#Temherte_slaq...

Well, we have :) or ;) [archaic ;-)] – not that different from other proposed or existing sarcasm or irony marks. The problem is its bad image, using it feels at least to me like hitting people over the head with the sarcasm or irony. I think it shouldn’t be that way.

Expressing sarcasm or irony in a text without any punctuation marks or any other obvious hints is hard and, if done right, brilliant. It’s an art quite unlike expressing sarcasm or irony in speech where we actually do hit people over the head with our delivery. We are just more used to it and it has a better image.

We probably shouldn’t be all that ashamed of hitting other people over the head with our sarcasm and irony in text, at least in casual online discussions and when we don’t have time for brilliance.

Re: AT&T to Acquire T-Mobile USA for $39 Billion

#145

Post by cosmicray »

zavulon wrote: post #69

I guess I don't understand how anti-trust laws work. Didn't they break up "Ma Bell" a few years ago specifically to prevent monopolies? And since then, AT&T bought Cingular, now T-Mobile, and they pretty much have a monopoly on GSM, if not on all mobile phones.

> And since then, AT&T bought Cingular, now T-Mobile

AT&T didn't buy Cingular per se. In late 2006 AT&T and Bellsouth each owned 50% of Cingular. AT&T got their 50% ownership via SBC. AT&T became sole owner of Cingular by acquiring Bellsouth. That deal closed about Dec 30, 2006 (after many delays getting approval from the FCC). The original iPhone was announced by Apple on January 9, 2007.

Re: AT&T to Acquire T-Mobile USA for $39 Billion

#146

Post by count »

jamesbritt wrote: post #67

I don't want to do business with a company that so willingly spied on American citizens. I just renewed a contract on T-Mobile. Now I need to see if I can get out with no penalty, and see who is left to send my business.

FYI, Tmob is a defendant named in the EFF suit for illegal wiretapping, along with Verizon and every other major carrier except Qwest.

Re: AT&T to Acquire T-Mobile USA for $39 Billion

#147

Post by count »

amock wrote: post #50
eli wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to belabor the point, but it's worth noticing that it was a lack of regulation that caused the mess in the US. The FCC should have just mandated one technology (as in most other countries).

Having the government decided which technologies can be used might have had some benefits here but it seems like there would be a lot less work on making technologies better and a lot more work on lobbying if that were the case.

While I don't think the mandate would have been a good idea, I don't think you can use the US as a case for 'making the technologies better'. We're way behind everybody else...

Re: AT&T to Acquire T-Mobile USA for $39 Billion

#148

Post by tptacek »

uxp wrote: post #139
tptacek wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't have a small number of wireless providers because of some collusive conspiracy. We have a small number of wireless providers because it costs billions of dollars to create nationwide wireless networks in a country the size of the United States. I completely understand your frustration at having to choose between two goliath companies for wireless access that works when you get off the plane no matter where y…

Right. It's not the best situation to have one or the other. More would be great in an ideal world, but we have this right now and until you or I can deploy a wide wireless GSM network for a few grand nothing will change. I was commenting on your point that it's not that big of a deal for AT&T to acquire T-Mobile. It is a big deal because, why it may not be easy (or in fact possible) to stick a third carrier in the m…

I am saying that despite people's concerns that consolidation in the wireless market will allow AT&T to abuse customers, the wireless market is already so intrinsically consolidated due to capital requirements for entry that AT&T was already asymptotically close to the maximal level of customer abuse it could inflict. This is similar to the argument security people have about the "Microsoft monoculture", as if 2-3 more operating systems were going to be anything more than a speed bump to attackers. One is a monopoly. 2-5 is still a cartel.

Re: AT&T to Acquire T-Mobile USA for $39 Billion

#149

Post by grammr »

My mom is a pretty senior manager at T-Mobile, so when I first read this post I texted her about the acquisition. She said that there were rumors in the company that Sprint was trying to buy them, but she had heard nothing about the AT&T acquisition. Five minutes later she got the news break from the CEO. HN ftw.

Re: AT&T to Acquire T-Mobile USA for $39 Billion

#150

Post by danudey »

icegreentea wrote: post #140
nerfhammer wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, Canada has 7 mobile providers? And we get 3?

Wind, Mobilicity etc are all new (they popped in existence after our AWS auction), and only have limited coverage (outside of their coverage area, they all have sharage agreements with one of the big three). For example, Wind only services a few of the major cities, but the moment you leave Wind's towers range, you're switched over the Roger's network and are charged hilarious fees. And our Big Three (Bell, Rogers, a…

Also of note that with Bell and Telus's new 3G network, Bell built out the Eastern half (its home base) and Telus built the Western, and they each share their networks with the other. That way, they could build out a next-generation network for half the cost, and twice as fast.

There are also a large number of non-major players (such as SaskTel in Saskatchewan, Aliant in the Maritimes, and so on) that are largely irrelevant unless you live in their coverage areas.

Post reply on HN