Your favorite Apple, iPhone, iPad, iOS, Jailbreak, and Cydia site.
03-21-2011, 11:37 PM #281
And yes, FYI: there is a 7-eleven Wireless.
You can call it what ever you want: "Re-badge, Re-label, re-seller".... BUT, they are a "cellular provider".
Because they have their own prices for the service they "provide" to their consumers, even though they operate under AT&T network
Read --> 7-Eleven Speak Out Wireless - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now why 7-eleven prices are different with AT&T?
Both are on the same network, aren't they?
Who do you call if you have issue with your cellular?
Of course your provider.
So is 7-eleven wireless is a re-badge AT&T?
You tell me.
Can you call AT&T if you have an issue with 7-eleven wireless?
The answer is no, because the "provider" is not AT&T.
Let me re-phrase it in different & simple analogy:
You own a car, let's say it's an Audi.
Do you know that Volkswagen owns Audi in which Volkswagen shares its technology in Audi's engine and its bells & whistles? But why are their pricing different, even though supposedly there 2 models with the same engine configuration which use the same technology?
Now all of a sudden you have an electrical problems with your Audi.
Do you complain to Volkswagen dealer or do you go to Audi dealer?
Of course you will have to whine to your provider, right?
Who is your "provider"? Yes ... Audi it is.
Also, do you call an Audi is a re-badge Volkswagen?
Also, do you call a Bugatti Veyron is a re-badge Volkswagen/Audi?
FYI: If you pop Bugatti's hood, you will find Audi/Volkswagen engine in it
Anyways, there are more than 180 cellular providers in the US
Do you still disagree with the term "Cellular providers"?
Call this guy - Steve Largent, President and CEO - CTIA The Wireless Association.
Tell him that he's been wrong all this year.
Or better yet ... call the FCC.
Even T-mobile back in 2008 was using AT&T communication towers to streamline their signals in some metropolitan areas. Did you know this?
Last edited by Riviera; 03-21-2011 at 11:47 PM.
03-21-2011, 11:44 PM #282
yea i mean this could be good for service reasons people on both networks but for the overall nation its going to suck because less competition. i have no problem with att, but im still on a plan that ive had since the cingular days.You don't like the iPad because you don't have one!
03-22-2011, 12:38 AM #283
^ I like this Riviera guy. He's onto something. Not to be confused with that squasss guy who is clearly on something.
Things have been rebadged since long before any of us were born. Just because it happens to ride on the AT&T or Verizon or T-Mobile or Sprint network doesn't mean any of those 4 providers is going to help you with problems like Riviera said. They just put up the towers and that's all.
It is up to the company name on the splash screen when you boot up your phone that determines who you call when something goes wrong(don't give me lame responses like "mine doesn't say a name" or "i unlocked mine so the name is different" or other crap like that. You know what I mean.)
My dad is cheap and he only wants to spend $25 a month for unlimited data/text/email/web(email/web/data are all essentially the same thing but that's neither here nor there) with Virgin mobile. If he has problems he calls Virgin mobile not Sprint who maintains the cell towers and the network in general. When he constantly complains about crappy service he can't call Sprint and ***** about it because they'll just tell him to call Virgin.
Furthermore, you all do realize that many of T-Mobile's towers do NOT belong to T-Mobile but instead are contracted from AT&T so yes when you T-Mobile cheapos cough up the extra cash every month when you resign with AT&T you will most definitely get better service.
To answer a question from before, the reason T-Mobile offers such awesome plans at great prices and has great customer service is because their product sucks. After trying out T-Mobile for 90 days all I got was "we credited your account $X amount for your inconvenience and we're sorry for the problems." They are always lowering prices and apologizing because their network sucks. AT&T maybe doesn't lower prices at all except to compete with Verizon and they sure don't apologize as much as T-Mobile does but do they really have to? You can complain about their network as much as you want but I haven't dropped a single call on AT&T unless I had bad reception on the 4 iPhones I have owned over the years.
Less competition doesn't always mean worse service. Look at Sprint. Their service has always sucked and they can't ever hope to compete with Verizon or AT&T.
Plus all this talk about anti-trust and monopolizing the GSM market is BS. Here is a huge example, look at your local cable provider. Most likely there is only 1 choice in the area unless you happen to have other options like AT&T Uverse or Verizon FIOS or the satellite providers for which I only have 2 choices: satellite or cable. Otherwise it's Cox communications/TimeWarner(it used to be Adelphia) around these parts of OC. To clarify that further, you won't be able to choose Cox if TimeWarner is the cable provider in your area and you can't choose TimeWarner if you live in an area serviced by Cox. How is that fair? It isn't and sometimes it really sucks but it's life.
Take Canada for example, other than the smaller operators there are really only 2(3 if you count Telus) major operators with lots of smaller companies that ride on their networks. Those 2 are Rogers and Bell. The AT&T and Verizon of Canada in the sense that Rogers is a GSM network and Bell is a CDMA network. None of my Canadian friends have complained that there isn't enough competition between providers to allow for decent prices.
I know this post is lengthy but here's the last part. Consider if there was a TON of competition and AT&T and Verizon weren't nearly as big as they are. That would mean less capital overall for everyone since there would be too much competition and less towers of your provider in a given area which means service would degrade tremendously compared to how it is now.
Last edited by alexevo; 03-22-2011 at 12:41 AM.
03-22-2011, 02:25 AM #284
03-22-2011, 03:56 AM #285
This is sad, more and more monopolies.
03-22-2011, 06:27 AM #286
Arguments and/or being problematic on the forums here is a rule that
must be withstood. Please cut out the unnecessary fighting, and problematic behavior.CHAZER99
03-22-2011, 06:41 AM #287
03-22-2011, 06:43 AM #288
AT&T is wasting money, losing their touch.CHAZER99
03-22-2011, 06:56 AM #289
Is like I said NO MORE UNLIMITED DATA on future ATT/T-Mobile...proof is right here...I highly doubt ATT will let customers get a new phone with the same plan unlimited data plan.....
NEW YORK (AP) -- AT&T Inc. said Monday that if its deal to buy T-Mobile USA goes through, T-Mobile subscribers with "3G" phones will need to replace those to keep their wireless broadband service working. But there will be plenty of time to do that.
Dallas-based AT&T said Sunday it had agreed to buy T-Mobile USA for $39 billion. If approved by regulators, the deal would close in about a year.
AT&T said that some time after the closing, it plans to rearrange how T-Mobile's cell towers work. The airwaves they use for third-generation services, or 3G, will be repurposed for 4G, which is faster.
That would leave current T-Mobile phones without 3G. They would need to be replaced with phones that use AT&T's 3G frequencies. Ralph de la Vega, AT&T's head of wireless and consumer services, said this will happen as part of the normal phone upgrade process.
03-22-2011, 07:02 AM #290
Yes. They will just add another data plan even in the occasion of
changing over SIMs from T-Mobile to AT&T etc.CHAZER99
03-22-2011, 07:03 AM #291
I just hope that if this gets approved there is significant regulation enacted to protect everyone. I do agree with what AT&T is doing but with the current deregulation of the wireless telcos then yes I do agree with some of you that this could be bad. It's simple though to regulate and the U.S. lawmakers, FCC, etc. can come up with some pretty strong rules that AT&T will have to abide by in order to make this go through.
03-22-2011, 07:10 AM #292
I will tell ATT, but Sir I already have an iphone 3G....they will be like it HAS to BE an ATT approved device regardless of what you have, so here $199 for a iphone 4 and 2GB of data...that would be a sad day...
03-22-2011, 07:18 AM #293
Last edited by squassss; 03-22-2011 at 07:18 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
03-22-2011, 07:21 AM #294
03-22-2011, 07:29 AM #295
Last edited by squassss; 03-22-2011 at 07:29 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
The Following User Says Thank You to squassss For This Useful Post:
03-22-2011, 07:37 AM #296
I see your point. I agree they are working on lots of improvements.CHAZER99
03-22-2011, 05:10 PM #297
AT&T is going to use the T-Mobile frequencies (which are NOT supported by current iPhones, and is the reason you don't get 3G) for "4G." This means that any "4G" device will run on the frequencies that used to be exclusive to T-Mobile. So any "4G" device should be backwards compatible with AT&T's 3G, but not vice versa.
The phones will have to be changed, because T-Mobile's 3G phones won't read the "4G" signal, and therefore, only ever see edge.
The big advantage for people like me, who are still waiting for 3G from AT&T, may very well see "4G" first.
I keep using 4G in quotes, because NEITHER HSPA+, or LTE, are actually 4G. Only LTE-A is.It's not where you've been, or where you're going..
It's where you are.
Reflect on the past, plan for the future, mod for today.
03-22-2011, 08:57 PM #298
They bought better coverage, more spectrum, and towers.CHAZER99
03-22-2011, 09:05 PM #299
Been reading about this all over.
In many cities this will broaden coverage. SF as an example will give ATT 40+% more coverage.
Also after the deal goes through they will begin phases. One will be to slowly bring T-Mobile customers to the ATT 3G spectrum. This will clear up T-Mobiles 3G spectrum for use for LTE plans.[CENTER][SIGPIC][/SIGPIC][/CENTER]
03-22-2011, 09:09 PM #300
Also places AT&T didn't or seldom provided coverage, and AT&T did have amplified the coverage
in those areas. Specifically rural areas, and very suburban areas. All AT&T wants is
coverage where corporates, and large corporates, or Wall-Street.CHAZER99