1 of 1 people found this helpful
That would be hilarious.
I really hope Sprint doesn't merge with or buy T-Mobile, I can't stand Sprint!
I usted work for them.....
1 of 1 people found this helpful
Sprint isn't Sprint anymore other than name. If T-Mobile is acquired T-Mobile brand and people take over or it'll be changed to Softbank USA.
I am however leery on Softbank. They are top in Japan in terms their respective market, but they are stricter than Verizon. So unless it happens and keep T-Mobile people in then I'd be very afraid.
Less Competition= higher prices
Merger = BAD
TMobile is an innovator and an upstart in the Cell Phone World as Metro PCS was/is, similar philosophy, THAT MERGER MADE SENSE.
If the Industry loses TMobile as an innovator OR IF TMobile is DILUTED
everyone will lose.
Don't believe me ? Look at your COMCAST bill .
Call COMCAST , they will explain why your Bill went up, but won't change it.
Call COMCAST , ask why your Bill changes from month to month with no changes made by you, no Pay Per View ordered- they will EXPLAIN why the Bill changes, they will not change it, their Goal is $200 per month. Lol.
Do you want your Cellphone Provider to be ruthless ?
Stop the MERGER.
Don't dilute TMobile.
Don't encourage Monopoly.
Copy and paste this and send to FCC.
I believe that one could argue that a Sprint/T-Mobile merger would actually create MORE competition as instead of two large companies (AT&T and Verizon) and two small companies (Sprint and T-Mobile), you would now have three large companies all competing for the same market. This would inevitably lead to more competitive pricing and offers from all three companies because AT&T and Verizon would then have to actually worry about Sprint/T-Mobile.
Plus, there is no such thing as a monopoly; it's a hoax perpetuated by socialist propaganda.
And this thread just went sour.....
Really has gone sour hasn't it?
And monopoly in markets is something that is proven to exist. Just look at the old ATT landline debacle.
Not saything there is always positive solutions for it. But it is definitly a thing.
With John Legere staying as CEO of the combined company that might not be so bad.
Saying "[j]ust look at the old ATT (sic) landline debacle" is somehow proof of the existence of a monopoly? I'm baffled by how this is so.
Please, all who read this, do two things: (1) Find the definition of "monopoly" in the economic sense, and (2) read just one journal article found here.
Also, please don't consider Wikipedia as "research" if you decide to respond (which should be done through PM).
Here is a small history lesson of the company of which I refer to.
It was actually broken up into smaller companies because the government deemed it a monopoly.
And as Merriam Webster defines it "exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action"
Which was clearly the case at that moment in history as AT&T at the time controlled nearly 100% of the market in many aspects of communication of the time.
How quickly we all forget things like that?
I think you are right on that.
Plus with that article being from "an interest group perspective", really leaves doubt if it is unbiased anyway. Interest groups are known for having agendas.
@theartszan an interest group that's selfless. ... I think I'll died of shock before anything
we will see what's gonna happen, I am already having my home service with Time Warner that they are not so sweet and I have no clue how it's gonna be when the wonderful Comcast buys them
TWC and Comcast i am more worried about than the Sprint and T-Mobile talks.
thanks for the info, as I said I am not a tech expert to know how these things will work together I was just asking, hopefully it's not a big issue as you explained, and yes I really am worried when Comcast buys Time warner, hopefully Google fiber will hurry up, I am in NC and this is one of the states they have it on their priority list, but again the regulators and licenses that slow down everything lolllllllllll,
what we do with TWC is to be on a promotional plan all the time and before it's over you need to call and nag for another promotion, well that's my wife's job, today we found out that the bill was increased by 17$ she called and they said the promotion is over well she had to nag they said we can give you 30 megs internet instead of 20 for the same new price, we said ok then I asked how much if we get the 50 megs they said another 5 $ wow let's get that then told my wife we have one year so put it on your calendar to nag them next year lol before it's over, Gosh the internet portion is gonna be 60 $ during the promotion but it will jump to 112 $ when it's over, I said no I am not interested in paying that just for the internet so check your calendar everyday
I dropped everything except internet and just got their 100Mb package. I am still a little peeved that i get a 5Mb upload. I honestly believe i should get 15-20Mb.
yeah 100mb is great it's not available in my area though, and yes I wonder why the upload is kinda limited mine is 5 as well with the 50 mb, I have a friend in Canada who has 50 mb down and 10 up but it's VDSL for about 50 bucks no promotion, the funniest thing the provider which is rogers provides the users with a Sagem thing router that doesn't give you the speed you're paying for, so he had to use it as an access point and got himself a decent router to reach the right speed.
I have read several articles speaking of this merge, and it seems like the only benefit is one bigger company with more users, but what I realized is that the 2 networks overlap in lots of states which doesn't seem like a benefit, needless to mention that the 2 companies use different technology, since I am not an IT person I have no clue how they will work it out and if they want to use one technology that probably it will be the GSM how much that is going to cost to fix the networks and make them compatible, and how they are going to handle the MILLIONS of users to change their phones??? and how long it will take to do that???????????
Both are moving over to VoLTE. They are using the same technology in the near future. Don't let the FUD fool you into thinking there's a lot of overlaps. The towers are not in the same place. Certain regulations make it hard to put in towers(Hawaii for example). By the time the merger is completed more than likely majority of the networks should be VoLTE which CDMA/GSM hardware can be retired. Most of these groups think short term and not long term.
I'm a bit late to this thread, so I'll keep my reply relatively short
-Comcast is evil. My bill goes up for absolutely no reason whatsoever. They make money hand over fist in Canada thru their Rogers brand, which is, by far, the biggest multimedia carrier up there. Yay, I get to use their network when I go on vacation. I'll let you know how _lousy_ it is.
-The spider is absolutely horrible.. I do hope that's a photoshop job, and not an actual creature.
-Special interest groups are in it for themselves, and nobody else they claim to stand up for.
-I'd like to see Sprint keel over as it struggles helplessly against the no-contract trend on its own. They hose their customers left right, and center.
That is a real thing
While I agree Comcast is evil, there is a reason your bill goes up. It's
those pesky media companies that license their channels to Comcast and
other providers for a fee (it's not free, ya know). The largest chunk of
your bill goes to ESPN. So, if you don't watch ESPN, you're paying for the
luxury of having it. And, guess what -- you can't get a cable package
Every couple years, the media providers go to the cable / satellite
providers and say "hey -- we'll let you run our programming for this fee."
That fee may be the same as it's been for the previous years, it may be an
increased fee because AMC thinks The Walking Dead and Sons of Anarchy are
worth enough for the rate hike and cable / satellite providers say "Well,
we don't want to lose customers, so I guess we'll take it." Do the math --
if ESPN wants $15 per subscriber, Discovery wants $11, Turner wants $10,
Scripps wants $10, Viacom wants $14, ABC/Disney wants $5, Fox News wants
$5, MSNBC wants $5, and NBCUniversal wants $10, that's $85. There's not a
lot of profit in that. And, that doesn't include the fees for carrying
local channels. There was a Viacom dispute with DirecTV a couple years
ago, and it was over something like fifty cents or a dollar per subscriber.
Eventually DirecTV had to knuckle under, so that .50-1.00 per subscriber
has to come from somewhere.
(And, while these aren't exact numbers, they're fairly close. Most of
their profits are from selling ads locally where they have permission from
the network provider -- similar to how your local NBC affiliate will sell
ad time to a local family fun center, there's slots the cable networks will
open up for local ads. My sister and I would watch TV together over the
phone a lot and we would get a lot of different commercials because of
this. But, with subscribers down thanks to things like Hulu and Netflix,
in order for companies who depend on advertising and subscription revenue
to expand and provide great
content, they have to raise things somewhere... it's a delicate window...
and, unfortunately, cable tv costs are probably just going to go up)
Now, Comcast's internet and phone services, on the other hand, those are
grossly overpriced, and are probably what's used to make up for the
promotional rates they're providing on TV for signing up. I mean, how else
would you explain the fact the US has slow over priced cablemodem speeds
compared to a lot of the rest of the world?
Sorry, I had to get on my soap box when you called Comcast evil for raising
your rates. I may work for one of those media providers mentioned above,
which means my paycheck depends on Comcast carrying their channels, and
Comcast carrying their channels depends on the fact they're priced what is
appropriate to not only deliver the programming you've grown and love, but
new programming to make a name for the network. I mean, what would AMC be
without Walking Dead? What would TBS be without Conan? What would USA be
without WWE? What would Discovery be without Mythbusters? What would MTV
be without Teen Mom? [Ok, I think we can tell what media company I DON'T
work for] Advertising only gets the media companies so far, otherwise the
local network affiliates would be significantly larger and provide more
original programming instead of syndicating.