AT&T = Fastest mobile broadband network?

You wouldn't want to be an AT&T customer. The network is worse off and loading AT&T customers onto T-Mobiles network can make your experience much worse. I'm saying T-Mobile shouldn't sell.

Then why didn't you say that in this thread before..

Well its not worse off because of shortage of spectrum. Its worse off because AT&T doesn't use all of its spectrum. They actually use alot less and if they did it would be alot better but AT&T's network isn't bad everywhere there are places that do get good service its just not that much. Other than that their Customer Service has been awful. It is the lowest ranked and you don't want to deal with these reps. There are many reasons as to why AT&T buying T-Mobile will result in a bad situation.

Jet have you ever said something to just impress and don't follow through?

No, I always follow through.

Also, they aren't obligated to replace the phones due to the fact they can still operate on GSM.

We won't know what they're obligated to until the FCC releases its terms to permit the acquisition.  But regardless, they said they would replace the handsets.  I don't think it really applies to you because you've already said you're headed for Verizon.  So, you are correct in that, there will be no replacement handset for you. I, however, will get one per the AT&T investor conference call. 

As a matter of fact do you think AT&T is really short on spectrum? The answer is NO.

They are short on spectrum in many areas covering 55 million people.   That's the difference in the amount of people that can be covered by LTE if they get T-Mobile's spectrum or they don't.  You want those people to go without LTE for your own selfish reasons. 

According to the charts AT&T is #1 spectrum holder with 107MHz.

It doesn't matter how much spectrum you have in many urban areas if you can't get a tower built.  It takes at least 5 years, sometimes double that just to get approval to build a tower.  Yes, they have unused spectrum, and once they get T-Mobile towers, they can instantly throw their equipment onto it and start letting their customers and T-Mobile customers use all of that spectrum. 

And if the merger went through. I'll be watching you come in here now complaining about it and i'll just say told you so.

I won't be complaining.  I will be enjoying a much better network while paying the same prices I do now. 

Jet. I have gone through the entire spectrum board and when it comes to AT&T I have concluded first of all they are #2 owner of LTE Spectrum. Verizon is ahead of them with 30MHz vs 25MHz but AT&T has their own AWS and Verizon too. They aren't short on spectrum at all its a fib they are trying to tell you and they can cover the 97% w/o LTE. There is another way to cover maximize your LTE and that is to convert one of your band lets say 1900MHz over to LTE you can create a dual-link chain and now you have LTHE. They would only flip that 1900MHz frequency over to give customers better speeds and get them off of 2G & 3G 1900. They'd still have a 850MHz 2G & 3G network to fall back on. But IDK why i'm saying this because they aren't using what they have efficiently and not using all they have either. But i'm not selfish. I'm trying to stop T-Mobile from being sucked up completely. T-Mobile could survive if they change themselves around i've said this many times. Does myFaves ring a bell? What seems it bought over 1 Million customers in per quarter didn't it and when it went bye bye so did the customers. They haven't said anything lately on replacing handsets. This is from the same company that was at D9 and said we don't call our HSPA 14.4 4G. In which they do. Verga also said the iPhone was unlocked if you bought it at full price in which it wasn't. So why do ppl boo at AT&T all the time. Because most don't like them and AT&T just wants control to monopolize because they've done it once before and thats another reason to stop the acquisition. But before you say its going to be a better network I think you should do the equations. Right now your on a network with 33.62 Million people right? If this deal went through how many will be on the network? Probably around 135 Million once its complete.

OK now what networks are going bye bye?

AWS 1700/2100 -> Flipped to LTE. So you no longer have 3G or HSPA+ 21/42.

Your 3G would throw you on 850/1900 instead. OK better reception but T-Mobile doesn't have an 850 network so they didn't get any spectrum for 850. Because its all 1900. OK well theres more 1900 spectrum so the network may perform less than 10% better because congestion exists. You get 700/1700/2100 for LTE.

Still wouldn't make a better network because AT&T built it and they are screw ups.

But it doesnt take that long for a tower. I read 6 months somewhere. I know a new tower here is coming and its not taking 5 years.

But I can't believe your trusting them with their word. Because AT&T has hardly ever listened or kept their word.

and FYI NO I don't always follow through with my word and no one else does either they have to at least miss 1 time.

AT&T has their own AWS and Verizon too.

Right.  But AT&T's AWS doesn't cover the whole country like T-mobile's does:

http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=99&p=1495

They aren't short on spectrum at all its a fib they are trying to tell you and they can cover the 97% w/o LTE.

Key word---without.  They can cover 97% without LTE.  So 55 million people won't have the opportunity to get LTE from AT&T.  HSPA will be obsolete in a few years and that's what you want to saddle these people with.  You keep saying it's a fib, but the maps and licenses prove you wrong.

There is another way to cover maximize your LTE and that is to convert one of your band lets say 1900MHz over to LTE

1900 is used by AT&T for 2G and 3G.  They can't start reallocating it to LTE without crashing their whole existing infrastructure. 

I'm trying to stop T-Mobile from being sucked up completely.

T-Mobile isn't getting sucked up.  They are selling out.  Read T-mobile's response to opponents to the merger:

http://www.tmonews.com/2011/06/t-mobile-comments-on-new-fcc-filings-calls-opponents/

Do you think DT is interested in keeping T-Mobile USA running as they have been?  No, they do not.  It's pretty obvious.  They only want their $39 billion in cash & stock.

They haven't said anything lately on replacing handsets.

It's on their website everyday.  They haven't taken it down.

So why do ppl boo at AT&T all the time. Because most don't like them

Really, that's why they're signing up on AT&T in record numbers:

From the 2011 first quarter report:

Best-ever first-quarter increase in total wireless subscribers, up 2.0 million to reach 97.5 million subscribers in service, with gains in every category
Best-ever first-quarter smartphone sales of more than 5.5 million
iPhone activations increased nearly 1 million year over year to 3.6 million, with 23 percent of subscribers new to AT&T; iPhone subscriber churn unchanged year over year
Best-ever first-quarter connected device net adds of 1.3 million
Branded computing subscribers (includes tablets, aircards and other data-only devices) up 421,000, doubling since the first quarter of 2010 to reach 3.4 million

Somebody is not booing AT&T---they're actually spending quite a bit of money on their services. 

AWS 1700/2100 -> Flipped to LTE. So you no longer have 3G or HSPA+ 21/42.

I'll have it on 850/1900.  I'll have a device with those frequencies and AT&T will put their transmitters on the T-Mobile towers with the backhaul for 21/42.  It will be fine.  Meanwhile, they'll have 75 milllion people covered by LTE by the end of the year.  So I may just switch to that if I'm covered.  Either way, I'm good to go.

T-Mobile USA has no route to LTE and without AT&T would just die a slow death while peddling HSPA or merging themselves with Sprint.  (And don't think they weren't in talks to sell you out to Sprint, because they were.)

Still wouldn't make a better network because AT&T built it and they are screw ups.

You want to see screw-ups, see Sprint.

But it doesnt take that long for a tower. I read 6 months somewhere.

A tower where?  In timbuktu?  Or New York?  Or San Francisco where they need to expand the most?

I'm siding with Jet. Viper, you are being kinda selfish. AT&T knows there has to be some truth to their statements. They may have more spectrum but not in the right places.

No i'm not trying to be selfish to be honest. I am trying to be truthful. Look at AT&T's history. Yes I agree on Sprints part. But AT&T is worse off. They are only signing up subscribers because of what they offer and the # of subscribers not because they are any good. You kinda have to get into the thing of sociology. People complain to complain in life but don't leave.

Have u tried AT&T before? I would like everyone to give AT&T a 30 day test drive and then come back and let me know how the experience was. That will change your mind.

You can't let AT&T suck up another company. If T-Mobile wants to sell give it to Vodafone. But I don't want just 1 GSM company and many others feel the same way. I don't want to pay higher rates and I don't want to hae to be switched onto their towers here because they are awful and this city doesn't have many to even be an excuse for overcrowding.

2G will become obsolete in the next few years anyways and T-Mobile was going to take their 1900 and use it for LTHE. So why not take the 1900 and throw it on LTE. You now have 2 frequencies than one. Today we should be in a world with only 3G/4G services and it could be possible to maintain 3G on 1900. I don't think this is greedy really this would give customers no lower than 384kbps UMTS standard of speed and they can call and browse the web at the same time w/o worrying about going on a network that doesn't both at the same time.

Also AT&T owns 25MHz of LTE not 20MHz and they want 6MHz. That totals out to 31MHz vs Verizons 30MHz. So a question is Verizon short on LTE spectrum? No. Then AT&T can't be either after the Qualcomm approval. LTHE would be a better alternative for T-Mobile subscribers than LTE would be because your using your already widest built network to bring the service while it could take years to build out a new one. It also rids of 2G services and puts you in an always connected Voice/Data dual mode with always faster speeds. So if you can't depend on T-Mobiles 3G today you could depend on T-Mobiles LTHE for signal reliability.

This article is from 2008: They said 95%. They keep changing their story.

http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=2920

Coverage for LTE:

http://blog.rapidsea.com/2007/10/aloha-partners-says-good-bye-to-700-mhz-ships-it-off-to-att-for-25-billion/

http://www.rcrwireless.com/assets/jpg/bwinners1.jpg

http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=187&p=231

If you overlay their AWS spectrum holdings with their Lower 700 MHz spectrum holdings you'll find that the vast majority of the country is covered one way or another. The few areas where AT&T holds neither AWS nor Lower 700 MHz spectrum will have to wait for GSM to be retired and the cellular/PCS spectrum currently used for GSM to be freed up for LTE.

FYI i'm not just saying AT&T should be the only one to retire 2G networks every else should follow. But still with AT&T AWS holdings & LTE holding they cover basically everywhere. You can run 3G & LTE on 1900 just like they run 2G & 3G to this day. 2G would be freed from 850 making it a 3G only network which gives you more spectrum for 3G.

Anyways theres going to be another auction coming for LTE and T-Mobile can participate with it. Before that they can stick to their plan for 672Mbps LTHE and goto 1Gbps LTHE when the specs are done. T-Mobile can sign up for LightSquared too.

People complain to complain in life but don't leave.

That's not true.  Look at how many people left Sprint after it bought Nextel.  A company has never lost so many subscribers.  When a company is bad, people leave.  When a company is not bad, people stay.  Simple.  Postpaid churn on AT&T was like 1.18% last quarter whereas T-Mobile's was a very high 2.4%.  T-Mobile is the company that people aren't happy with. 

But I don't want just 1 GSM company and many others feel the same way.

You just stated that you wanted to see GSM disbanded.  So who cares about a GSM "monopoly".  LTE is the way of the future. 

I don't want to hae to be switched onto their towers

You won't be switched onto their towers. They're putting their transmitters on the towers that you use everyday.  So when you switch, you'll be on the same towers.

Today we should be in a world with only 3G/4G services and it could be possible to maintain 3G on 1900.

Tell that to T-Mobile who can't even get me 3G services in all areas of a city I live in with a population of 2 million.  I'm walking around with a 4G device getting damn EDGE.

Neither AT&T and T-Mobile are ready to dump 2G.  2G is the catch all for what people consider to be the most important---the ability to make a phone call.  People will tolerate slow data, but they won't tolerate no service.  And that's what would happen if you disbanded the 2G networks today.  Lots of areas of no service. 

Anyways theres going to be another auction coming for LTE and T-Mobile can participate with it.

They can, but they won't.  DT is done buying spectrum. 

People complain to complain in life but don't leave.

That's not true.  Look at how many people left Sprint after it bought Nextel.  A company has never lost so many subscribers.  When a company is bad, people leave.  When a company is not bad, people stay.  Simple.  Postpaid churn on AT&T was like 1.18% last quarter whereas T-Mobile's was a very high 2.4%.  T-Mobile is the company that people aren't happy with.  

But I don't want just 1 GSM company and many others feel the same way.

You just stated that you wanted to see GSM disbanded.  So who cares about a GSM "monopoly".  LTE is the way of the future.  

I don't want to hae to be switched onto their towers

You won't be switched onto their towers. They're putting their transmitters on the towers that you use everyday.  So when you switch, you'll be on the same towers.

Today we should be in a world with only 3G/4G services and it could be possible to maintain 3G on 1900.

Tell that to T-Mobile who can't even get me 3G services in all areas of a city I live in with a population of 2 million.  I'm walking around with a 4G device getting damn EDGE.

Neither AT&T and T-Mobile are ready to dump 2G.  2G is the catch all for what people consider to be the most important---the ability to make a phone call.  People will tolerate slow data, but they won't tolerate no service.  And that's what would happen if you disbanded the 2G networks today.  Lots of areas of no service.  

Anyways theres going to be another auction coming for LTE and T-Mobile can participate with it.

They can, but they won't.  DT is done buying spectrum.  

UMTS is a GSM technology AT&T would only have. 2G will be disbanding just like 1G did. CDMA doesn't have a SIM.

If you read on Facebook you see people complaining about AT&T service and people in general on Facebook complaining over and over about the same ol thing. 2.4% isn't that much when comparing 33.62 million to 97.5 million. What would AT&T's churn rate be if they had 33.62 million? Wouldn't it be much worse than T-Mobile? More like 3.3% if so. So AT&T isn't any better. But wasn't T-Mobile's highest # of customers 33.7 or 33.8 Million. Wow thats not bad but not good. At least it wasn't as bad as Sprint they lost alot more.

T-Mobile has had 3G since 2008. AT&T started in like 2003. It took AT&T nearly 6 years to deliver 3G coverage at an OK signal level for certain areas but their rollout has slowed down on 3G.

No the fact that the towers will overcrowd with the AT&T subscribers sharing them because AT&T takes their time on rollouts and not all rollouts are efficient.

You have a 4G device? since when? I thought you had an iPhone.

Making phone calls aren't the top priority available its data bandwidth. So switching them to 3G would still provide you with even better service and you still could make a call the signal could get better or just stay the same. Its not like completely building out a new network you just remove the 2G from it and swap it for 3G in the same place it also enhances 3G speeds and enables AT&T to move to better networks like HSPA+ 28/42/84/168.

Viper it's not just flipping a switch 2G-3G for the whole United States. In many places there isn't even any data covg. The only company that could have an all 3G/4G network is Verizon, because their 3G coverage is more than T-mobile voice coverage, and its 4G network will cover that and thensome in 2013, with LTE-only phones in 2013.

The coverage of 3G that AT&T doesn't cover isn't that much and it will only take a year to complete the flip if they play their cards right. Besides UMTS voice quality is soo much better. IDK how GSM was ever considered a digital voice network. Those areas that don't have 3G will just get it its much less work than LTE is going to be.

T-Mobile serves around 220 Million POPs with 3G. They can still slow down that 3G rollout but increase rollout with LTHE it will bring the same signals you get today but just 4G not 2G.


Plan details:

AT&T:

AT&T would flip all of its 850 & 1900 2G to 3G UMTS/WCDMA/HSDPA/HSPA/HSPA+ 28-168 providing speeds to users of 60-80 Mbps w/ Peaks of 100Mbps and extreme peaks of 100-150Mbps. 850 spectrum would expand to an only 3G service.

AT&T would keep half of its 2G spectrum and turn it to pair to 1900 4G LTE services with its 700 LTE services it provides. It could provide 150Mbps alone on full 15MHz on the downstream. This however could be multiplied by 2 if 4x4 is used. They'd use 10MHz to provide 70Mbps on the upstream. They could also use the 2G amount used to boost speeds even faster and provide service to rural areas w/o any LTE path.  

AT&T would use their WCS 2300 spectrum to pair onto LTE for boosts of speeds this will help areas w/o any LTE.

AT&T would use AWS 1700/2100 10MHz they own to also boost speeds of those areas with & w/o LTE.

AT&T would buy 20MHz of spectrum or more in the next auction and use it for LTE-A.


T-Mobile:

T-Mobile would write to the FCC asking for 2100 to be separated from the combined AWS 1700/2100 frequency. AWS would then be known as AWS 1700 and 2100 would become band I. Companies who paid for AWS would then pay the same again to the FCC to double their spectrum holdings. 25 turns into 50. They would use this to expand to the Same HSPA+ 168. T-Mobile would replace 2G towers with 4G towers and continue to expand 3G like 4G is to reach over 300 Million POPS. The towers would be the same # as 4G towers. Now the reception problem with 3G is gone.

T-Mobile would flip their PCS 1900 into 4G LTHE 672Mbps as planned. They would also partnership with LightSquared to gain spectrum easily and add that band into PCS 1900. T-Mobile would then buy 20MHz or more at the next auction and choose to use it for 4G or expanding 3G footprint their choice.

T-Mobile also has the option to purchase Leap and gain their AWS spectrum. As they are still looking for a buyer.

To gain customers back relaunch MyFaves as software that a user has to download onto their handset. Instead of paying manufacturers to install. This is the best solution. It saves money. Give users the option of 5, 10 & 20. Also rid of carly and just have a speaker in the background use different ppl for their advertising. Possibly explore a duplication of UK advertising to the US. The plans they offer can be renamed "Beyond Value for short, Nations Best Wireless Service". I'm willing to give them my secret slogan "Running At The Speed of Light" for Viper Matrix Wireless.

I have a list of features & plans actually prepared here this is what T-Mobile could switch to, to save you even more money:

Nights & Weekends start at 7PM.

500  (VIP 5 included) 19.99
1000 (VIP 10 included) 29.99
1500 (VIP 20 included) 39.99
Unlimited 49.99

Includes 3 Lines, Max 10 instead of 5
1000 (VIP 5 included) 39.99
2000 (VIP 10 included) 49.99
3000 (VIP 20 included) 59.99
Unlimited 79.99

AAL - 1000, 2000, 3000 - ($10 AAL 4-5, $5 AAL 6-8, FREE 9-10) Unlimited - ($20 AAL 4-5, $10 AAL 6-8, $5 9-10; 1000 AAL $10 AAL 4-5, $5 AAL 6-8, FREE 9-10)

Dumbphone Web (Unlimited) $5 Tethering ENABLED $5 (5GB MAX)
5GB of Data w/ Tethering $10
10GB of Data w/ Tethering $20
25GB of Data w/ Tethering $30

Family Data Share Plans

25GB of Data $30 AAL - ($10 L4-10)
50GB of Data $40 AAL - ($10 L4-10)
75GB of Data $50 AAL - ($10 L4-10)
100GB of Data $60 AAL - ($10 L4-10)

This is all that I will show.

So uh how are those plans profitable?

T-Mobile would write to the FCC asking for 2100 to be separated from the combined AWS 1700/2100 frequency. AWS would then be known as AWS 1700 and 2100 would become band I.

The  FCC doesn't have the authority to change the definition of AWS!  And 2100 is just the NAME of band 1.   Band 1 operates in uplink 1920–1980 and downlink   2110–2170.

See: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMTS_frequency_bands

That's one of the reasons why America didn't use Band I as Europe did for 3G.  Because America had already allocated most of the 1900 frequencies for use on 2G. 

Companies who paid for AWS would then pay the same again to the FCC to double their spectrum holdings.

You act like double the spectrum is there.  And it's not.  And anyway, if T-Mobile spent 4 billion on it's original AWS purchase, where do you think they're getting another 4 bill?

Spectrum is there but not the entire frequency. Downlink & Uplink would be split and the reason why the FCC doesn't use 2100 is because Europe does. As you noticed any band Europe uses the US does not. However, that could change. Spectrum doesn't exactly have to do with frequency. You would know this if u've had Wi-Fi. All different routers pushing out different speeds. 2100 would be split and theres a possibility the 2000MHz frequency could be added onto the 2100. If the spectrum wasn't there then how is sonic.net & Google rolling out 1Gbps services?

T-Mobile has the 4 Billion they just don't want to spend on the US.

The plans are very profitable while giving consumers even more savings.

The FCC are the ones that ran the LTE auction & the AWS auction so they do have some authority. They may need government approval but this removes the 2100 block from AWS.

Anything above 2GHz should not be used for mobile networks due to its signal reach.

Spectrum is there but not the entire frequency. Downlink & Uplink would be split and the reason why the FCC doesn't use 2100 is because Europe does.

It has nothing to do with whether Europe did or not.  The United States already allocated 1930-1980 for PCS and 1920-1930 is allocated for Unlicensed Personal Communication Services as shown on this chart:

http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/aws/data/awsbandplan.pdf

That's why the government instead sold the AWS band instead of band 1 because the uplink freqencies were available to be paired with the 2100 frequencies that do the downlink. 

And no, the government can't change what the bands consist of.  It's a worldwide standard that was put in place by the World Administrative Radio Conference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMTS_frequency_bands

The US can't just invent new bands like you claim.    Each country has to choose from the bands listed.

The government can do anything they please. Even take over the WARC.

They need to remove the A-F and have all carriers run on 1710-1755. The licenses make since to be apart of the game. This is really just a game they play to create a system. It is just a group just like the FCC that has different responsibilities.

Release the Infuse 4G & EVO 3D & iPhone 4S (but don't keep it secret) & try to get the HTC Eternity T-Mobile.

And you can add myFaves as a separate add-on if you want to. Like myFaves 5 - $5, myFaves 10 - $10 & myFaves 20 - $20.

41% of stores could be affected for closure, we know it isn't 0%:

http://www.tmonews.com/2011/06/t-mobile-dealers-dont-see-a-future-with-att-worried-about-post-merger-state/

BTW AT&T places 3rd & 4th like I thought in speed & Sprint's been helping AT&T Engineers in teaching them how to deploy better:

http://www.tmonews.com/2011/06/t-mobile-takes-easy-second-place-in-pcmags-fastest-mobile-network-2011-contest/

I believe the FCC should hear from the public as it affects them:

http://www.tmonews.com/2011/06/groups-seek-public-hearings-from-fcc-regarding-attt-mobile-takeover/

So how awesome it could be to merge 2 carriers together to create the best network for the consumers as some are for the merger for that reason. I believe it isn't best for the business sense and besides look whos buying them and its not really to give you a better network its so they can become more dominant. Since Verizon has more customers now. AT&T is jealous and they have an opportunity to get back at Verizon to become the biggest. It would be better for a non-existent carrier to come and purchase them that can improve T-Mobiles network. This is sooo AT&T doesn't get nearly 100% of GSM rights. Because those who don't like CDMA who are you going to pick thats GSM other than AT&T. Why should the international travelers have to choose AT&T? Why should an international traveler have to spend extra money on a CDMA phone with GSM hybrid when their country has NO CDMA?