I would think that Verizon might at least wait to purchase Sprint because Sprint is trying to make a-go with WiMAX rather than LTE for their 4G technology.
I dunno. If this were to go through, I think it would be nigh impossible for that to stand up to regulatory scrutiny. Of course, this is assuming that more GOP "Champions of the Free Market" don't get voted into office in 2012.
The reason that I think the T-Mobile deal might go through it that it will open up market opportunities for the value companies such as Boost and Cricket. A bunch of T-Mobile customers, who don't want to pay the rates of ATT or Verizon, and aren't well served by Sprint, may go to these other companies. The consumer will only be served by the growth of these value companies.
I still don't think this is a good enough reason to let this deal go through. For one, Boost is actually owned by Sprint. And two, those discount carriers aren't known for their smartphones. They still won't have the market clout to get HTC or Motorola's newest handset. Not to mention that more Android handsets are going to be sold locked down, as AT&T and Verizon would now be the two major sellers of them, and they like their shit locked down.
Yes it is. Their first duty should be increasing their quality of service for their customers, the ones they have locked into a 2 year contract. Choosing to buy a bunch of new customers instead of improving and maintaining their infrastructure is like being slapped in the face with their cock.
Agreed. This has shown that the entire notion of "voting with your wallet" is worthless, as the entity you are voting against can simply buy up the company you went with anyway.
I know this is sarcasm, but what good is the "free market" and "voting with your wallet" if, after voting against AT&T and for T-Mobile, they nullify my vote by buying their competition?
Well, there is something to be said about being the new carrier for flagship Android phones, now that T-Mobile is having their technical distinctiveness absorbed by AT&T. But if I had to guess, I'm guessing its fat sacks of cash money.
The Red Cross has a shortcode donation service that most carriers will allow a free SMS to during times of disaster, like the current situation in Japan. The $10 donation gets added on to your phone bill for the month.
Well, if you're an Android fan, it sounds like the consensus is the next best carrier is Sprint. Especially given the recent announcement about GV and the Nexus S 4G.
Japanese companies, and their investors, realize that one of the best ways to realize shareholder returns is planning for the long term. That means good customer service. In America, its all about the short term: Raise the stock price as high as you can as quickly as you can, and then get out before your actions cause that price to crash.
Ahh, there's "competition", but its not easy to transition from one to the other. For one, in the example you gave, you're gonna have to get a new phone, regardless of how old your current one is, or how much you like it. And odds are, the phone you have is not available on the other guy's network. Oh, and don't forget that couple hundred dollar "We Suck" fee, designed to prevent you from moving.
No, but if I did, I would be able to sue the grocery store for violation of their contract, as you can with the cellular companies if the service they're providing is suddenly sub-par and vastly inferior to its conditions at the start of the contract.
Competition among grocery stores is much more fluid, as grocery stores typically don't put up anywhere near the barriers to switching, such as incompatible tech and ETFs.
No, but there definitely isn't free competition among them. Especially when they do whatever they can to keep you from moving to and fro between carriers (incompatible tech, huge ETFs)
Slashdot Mirror
I would think that Verizon might at least wait to purchase Sprint because Sprint is trying to make a-go with WiMAX rather than LTE for their 4G technology.
I dunno. If this were to go through, I think it would be nigh impossible for that to stand up to regulatory scrutiny. Of course, this is assuming that more GOP "Champions of the Free Market" don't get voted into office in 2012.
is there even one reason why it's GOOD for consumers?
AT&T gets some new towers to offload congestion onto? That's all I've got.
A lot of those are also "Anybody but Verizon".
The reason that I think the T-Mobile deal might go through it that it will open up market opportunities for the value companies such as Boost and Cricket. A bunch of T-Mobile customers, who don't want to pay the rates of ATT or Verizon, and aren't well served by Sprint, may go to these other companies. The consumer will only be served by the growth of these value companies.
I still don't think this is a good enough reason to let this deal go through. For one, Boost is actually owned by Sprint. And two, those discount carriers aren't known for their smartphones. They still won't have the market clout to get HTC or Motorola's newest handset. Not to mention that more Android handsets are going to be sold locked down, as AT&T and Verizon would now be the two major sellers of them, and they like their shit locked down.
Even though a lot of people like to pretend they are forced to do business with AT&T, they aren't.
Except when they buy the provider you went with to avoid going with AT&T.
Yes it is. Their first duty should be increasing their quality of service for their customers, the ones they have locked into a 2 year contract. Choosing to buy a bunch of new customers instead of improving and maintaining their infrastructure is like being slapped in the face with their cock.
Guess what? TV is a dying medium.
It may be on its way, but it is nowhere near dead yet. It is still quite important, and very highly viewed.
Agreed. This has shown that the entire notion of "voting with your wallet" is worthless, as the entity you are voting against can simply buy up the company you went with anyway.
However, by then, they will probably be quite a ways into their LTE rollout, and most of the 3G stuff will be going away anyway.
I know this is sarcasm, but what good is the "free market" and "voting with your wallet" if, after voting against AT&T and for T-Mobile, they nullify my vote by buying their competition?
But what does Sprint get out all of this?
Well, there is something to be said about being the new carrier for flagship Android phones, now that T-Mobile is having their technical distinctiveness absorbed by AT&T. But if I had to guess, I'm guessing its fat sacks of cash money.
The Red Cross has a shortcode donation service that most carriers will allow a free SMS to during times of disaster, like the current situation in Japan. The $10 donation gets added on to your phone bill for the month.
Well, if you're an Android fan, it sounds like the consensus is the next best carrier is Sprint. Especially given the recent announcement about GV and the Nexus S 4G.
Japanese companies, and their investors, realize that one of the best ways to realize shareholder returns is planning for the long term. That means good customer service. In America, its all about the short term: Raise the stock price as high as you can as quickly as you can, and then get out before your actions cause that price to crash.
You can always sue somebody.
Unless you waive your right to sue, which, oh wait, you did.
Consumers still have the power to vote with their wallets, and that power isn't going anywhere.
Really? Cause I "voted with my wallet" to get away from AT&T. And look where that got me.
Ahh, there's "competition", but its not easy to transition from one to the other. For one, in the example you gave, you're gonna have to get a new phone, regardless of how old your current one is, or how much you like it. And odds are, the phone you have is not available on the other guy's network. Oh, and don't forget that couple hundred dollar "We Suck" fee, designed to prevent you from moving.
No, but if I did, I would be able to sue the grocery store for violation of their contract, as you can with the cellular companies if the service they're providing is suddenly sub-par and vastly inferior to its conditions at the start of the contract.
Wow, you are funny man.
Competition among grocery stores is much more fluid, as grocery stores typically don't put up anywhere near the barriers to switching, such as incompatible tech and ETFs.
Is there some barrier to entry?
Well, there's the whole thing about having to buy something like 10 metric fucktons of towers to get started.
No, but there definitely isn't free competition among them. Especially when they do whatever they can to keep you from moving to and fro between carriers (incompatible tech, huge ETFs)
Yes, it does. That has nothing to do with my comment. I meant that the plan + device total over 2 years is about $2k.
No, you read my comment wrong. I said the plan total, plus device, costs $2k over 2 years. Not that I was saving $2k.
Plus $500 for the device.
I would bet though, that if three or four of the indicators come up positive, that there is a very, very good chance the user is tethering.