T-Mobile to buy Sprint for $26 billion in an all-stock merger

OutlawCecil

Posts: 739   +570
It's not even just locally in my state, the whole district is underserved. There's multiple providers but everyone but Verizon comes with one severe drawback or another. It's pick your poison. Similar situation for cable. Spectrum and Verizon have identical pricing and speed, both have terrible customer service, and both of them use deceptive billing and throttling practices. For example, the "100 Mbps" they offer only extends to new customers. They keep old customers on the same plan forever unless you pay a fee. You end up paying $40 more a month than a new customer for the same speed. If you don't you are stuck, they will literally leave you on the 12 Mbps plan you signed up for 12 years ago with Roadrunner. Verizon forced all their cell data users off their grandfathered data plans as well.
Sounds like this article doesn't even affect you, but if it did, most likely a merger might actually get you another option. So you are against it because "other big businesses suck" so this one will probably too? I've been with MetroPCS and/or T-mobile for years and they've had decent business practices from my experience. I wouldn't ever think to compare them to Comcast whom I pay every month and is the bane of my (and everybody's) existence.
 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,469   +6,157
Sounds like this article doesn't even affect you, but if it did, most likely a merger might actually get you another option. So you are against it because "other big businesses suck" so this one will probably too? I've been with MetroPCS and/or T-mobile for years and they've had decent business practices from my experience. I wouldn't ever think to compare them to Comcast whom I pay every month and is the bane of my (and everybody's) existence.

I think you are lucky to have a cell provider in your area with decent business practices. That only remains so long as their is competition though. I don't have to be in a T-Mobile market to know the basics of a capitalist economy. Less competition means less innovation, higher prices, and worse service. Out of all the companies that claimed that their control of a local or regional market was for the good of the consumers, none of them worked out in the consumer's favor.

I don't believe that smaller companies that rent bigger networks are true competition as they require the competitor's network to exist in the first place. In order for that to be true competition, there would have to be price controls on what Verizon and T-Mobile could charge companies like MetroPCS. That way, if a company like T-Mobile was failing, they couldn't simply charge their competitors more money to use their network to make up their losses.
 

Tanstar

Posts: 659   +201
I don't really view sprint or t-mobile as true competitors to AT&T and Verizon anyway. Sprints always had the crappiest of networks and T-mobile ran attractive uncarrier initiatives that failed me due to lack of coverage in the places I live. If they can piece together one competitive company out of these two companies, I'm actually okay with that.
I agree with this. Currently neither is an option for me. Combined they might make a wireless company that gives us a legit third option.
 

Tanstar

Posts: 659   +201
Yeah sure. That overlapping coverage could only be top 50 markets. Then we'd have double the efforts to deploy 5G in the top 50 markets. while everyone else gets screwed. No thanks. Not sure what the solution is but its not that.

Or, ya know, just force sharing of the infrastructure at reasonable prices. It only works in every other 1st world country. IMO vital infrastructure like internet and phone shouldn't be privately owned period. The people should own it and rent it out to companies. But hey, that doesn't make companies any money now does it.
That would require our government to build the infrastructure, so we'd get 5G around 2050.
 

Tanstar

Posts: 659   +201
Sounds like this article doesn't even affect you, but if it did, most likely a merger might actually get you another option. So you are against it because "other big businesses suck" so this one will probably too? I've been with MetroPCS and/or T-mobile for years and they've had decent business practices from my experience. I wouldn't ever think to compare them to Comcast whom I pay every month and is the bane of my (and everybody's) existence.

I think you are lucky to have a cell provider in your area with decent business practices. That only remains so long as their is competition though. I don't have to be in a T-Mobile market to know the basics of a capitalist economy. Less competition means less innovation, higher prices, and worse service. Out of all the companies that claimed that their control of a local or regional market was for the good of the consumers, none of them worked out in the consumer's favor.

I don't believe that smaller companies that rent bigger networks are true competition as they require the competitor's network to exist in the first place. In order for that to be true competition, there would have to be price controls on what Verizon and T-Mobile could charge companies like MetroPCS. That way, if a company like T-Mobile was failing, they couldn't simply charge their competitors more money to use their network to make up their losses.
The advantage to the combination is they only have to upgrade and expand one set of towers. The reason you can only choose Verizon (I'm in a similar situation) is that only Verizon has invested in a truly nationwide network. Currently T-Mobile and Sprint are both spending their limited money to keep up speed wise with the Big Two, but can only afford to do that where there are the most customers and they can see the best return on their investment. Now the new company only has to make one set of 5G towers, can combine their 3G and 4G towers and has a much larger base to provide income for that expansion.
It still might not help you and I, as there might not be enough available income to make saturating our markets a good return on investment, especially when you'd have to undersell Verizon and then only split those customers with Verizon. Luckily, I live where I live for reasons bigger than wireless plan options, hopefully you do as well. For me, at least, I can be thankful that land, water and electricity are much cheaper than most of the country, so the more expensive wireless is offset.
 

bandit8623

Posts: 364   +196
5G is not a WiFi standard, it is a cellular data standard. And just a heads up, 5G does not penetrate buildings or objects well at all. It's essentially worthless when you get inside any house or building. You would still have to rely on 4G for inside your home. That's just an intrinsic quality to the wavelength of the millimeter waves used for 5G.
The 5g technology has nothing to do with how far it will penetrate buildings . Its all based on what frequency they use.
 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,469   +6,157
The 5g technology has nothing to do with how far it will penetrate buildings . Its all based on what frequency they use.

Yes it does, because 5G is done specifically with millimeter waves. Go look at any article explaining 5G. How do you think they get that kind of bandwidth? It's not possible on other frequencies.
 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,469   +6,157
https://www.androidpolice.com/2018/...hz-millimeter-wave-30-cities-year-no-devices/

At first maybe. But eventually all will be switched over just like 4g took over almost all frequencies.

That's not how it works

"But, 600 MHz will not be good for small cells, as operators need higher bands for this. So 600 MHz will not enable the operators to increase the capacity density of their networks."

https://www.rcrwireless.com/2016040...ngle-600-mhz-spectrum-will-good-will-not-tag9

The lower the frequency the wider the range and penetration but the less data it can carry. 600 MHz will be used for areas where heavy data use is not required and where customers are very spread out. It adds nothing to 5G technology. This is just the physics of these waves and they cannot be changed. It's exactly why Cell providers use a variety of frequencies to meet consumer needs.
 

bandit8623

Posts: 364   +196
That's not how it works

"But, 600 MHz will not be good for small cells, as operators need higher bands for this. So 600 MHz will not enable the operators to increase the capacity density of their networks."

https://www.rcrwireless.com/2016040...ngle-600-mhz-spectrum-will-good-will-not-tag9

The lower the frequency the wider the range and penetration but the less data it can carry. 600 MHz will be used for areas where heavy data use is not required and where customers are very spread out. It adds nothing to 5G technology. This is just the physics of these waves and they cannot be changed. It's exactly why Cell providers use a variety of frequencies to meet consumer needs.
Doesn't matter if its faster or not it will be 5G tech eventually. So people at least will be able to Connect inside buildings when they finally get rid of 4g radios in phones.