181–190 of 211 posts
This is complete bullshit, and would give AT&T an effective monopoly on GSM based wireless communications in a number of key markets. I say we collectively work to lobby against this deal, as it will be bad for all of us who are based in the US and looking to do ANYTHING in mobile. Imagine if Apple had tried to get their iPhone AppStore arrangement in a single-GSM carrier world? It's 2011, folks. We can't let oppress…
Are there any chipsets out there that could support both AT&T (1900) and T-mobile 3G (1700) frequencies? Since one of the main reasons for the merger is for spectrum, it seems that AT&T must be planning on utilizing T-mobile's spectrum in the future to improve reach and reliability, so it would make sense for them to provide phones that support both frequencies.
All of the T-Mo 3G phones are 850/1700/1900/2100.
Many T-mobile phones support old GSM (EDGE) on 850, 900, 1800, and 1900, which overlaps with AT&T. But UMTS (3G) support is on bands 1700 and 2100, neither of which AT&T uses. 2100 is common in Europe.
Oh crap. There goes my unlimited tethering.
In fairness, the likelihood of you keeping unlimited tethering on DT's T-Mobile was already pretty low.
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.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12745304/ns/technology_and_scien...
Meanwhile AT&T was up front about rolling over.
Since any telco can legally lie about this, I'm curious why T-Mobile was later added to the initial suit while Qwest was not. I looked around the EFF site but got tired of poking through PDFs and not finding anything to explain that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can see this acquisition facing some serious regulatory and legislative scrutiny. One can hope, but I'm not holding my breath. My guess is that FTC and FCC will make some comments, AT&T will make some small gestures, the deal gets approved and about a year later AT&T's plans increase in price by 15-20%.
And Slashdot and Reddit and a thousand independent tech blogs will fill with upset explanations of why this is bad for the market while no formal challenge or brief to the FTC is ever mounted.
Genuine question: Obviously it can't be challenged on anti-trust grounds (unless the original AT&T settlement applies here somehow), and I don't know enough US law to know what else might apply. I know many countries have a regulator for mergers that can sometimes apply a "bad for competition" policy, but I thought in the US that would only apply if it forms an actual monopoly?
Are there any chipsets out there that could support both AT&T (1900) and T-mobile 3G (1700) frequencies? Since one of the main reasons for the merger is for spectrum, it seems that AT&T must be planning on utilizing T-mobile's spectrum in the future to improve reach and reliability, so it would make sense for them to provide phones that support both frequencies.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
Mandates worked for TV standards (original standard def). Then when high def came around, everyone was lobbying for their own formats with too many official formats.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And Slashdot and Reddit and a thousand independent tech blogs will fill with upset explanations of why this is bad for the market while no formal challenge or brief to the FTC is ever mounted.
Under what grounds would it be challenged? Genuine question: Obviously it can't be challenged on anti-trust grounds (unless the original AT&T settlement applies here somehow), and I don't know enough US law to know what else might apply. I know many countries have a regulator for mergers that can sometimes apply a "bad for competition" policy, but I thought in the US that would only apply if it forms an actual monopo…