Database Info

Free My Phone Petition

New "smart" phones have set the stage for the future of a mobile Internet. But companies like AT&T and Verizon are getting in the way by shackling open and innovative devices to closed networks. The FCC and Congress must step in to protect consumers and foster innovation. We demand:
1. The freedom to choose any phone on any network.
2. The freedom to choose among many carriers in a competitive, low-cost marketplace.
3. The freedom to access any Web content, applications or services we want through our phones.
There is a legitimate, well organized, movement underway to force the USA wireless carriers to open their networks, and stop crippling phones. it is being run by the same folks fighting for net neutrality. Please show your support and spread the word.
Read the page:
http://www.freepress.net/freemyphone
Sign the petition (and email Congress and the FCC):
https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=333
Follow it on facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/FreeMyPhone/89600309468
Follow it on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/freemyphone
Follow it with the RSS feed:
http://www.freepress.net/taxonomy/term/5718/feed

Interesting but it won't work because 1 rich man is equal to 100,000 consumers. It's hard to tackle these companies.

Be informed that when a wireless company "shackles" a device to their own network, they are selling it to the customer at a very reduced price!!
In case they didn't, everybody will have to buy phones at the higher cost (as it is now when buying unlocked devices).

buy a phone unsubsidized and you can go on whichever carrier you wish?

Verizon/Google dealing major blow to Net Neutrality.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/08/google_and_verizon_have_come.html
Seems like the two are in bed for a hell of alot more than just Android.
FCC was weakened on this matter not too long ago and n ow this. Very very bad news for anyone who uses the internet.
Verizon, Google make net neutrality pact, sources say
Google and Verizon have come to an agreement on how network operators can manage Web traffic, according to two sources briefed on their negotiations.
The agreement, expected to be announced within days, comes as the Federal Communications Commission tries to get major Internet content firms and network service providers to strike a deal on disputed points of so-called net neutrality rules. It's unclear how the deal will affect the direction of those discussions.
The FCC said Verizon and Google are still part of meetings between senior staff and officials at AT&T, Skype, a cable trade association and the Open Internet Coalition. Public interest groups criticized the meetings and the rumored agreement between Verizon and Google for allowing giant Internet firms to have a greater say in the future of how consumers access the Web.
Verizon wouldn't confirm that a deal was struck but said in an e-mail statement:
"We've been working with Google for 10 months to reach an agreement on broadband policy. We are currently engaged in and committed to the negotiation process led by the FCC. We are optimistic this process will reach a consensus that can maintain an open Internet and the investment and innovation required to sustain it."
Specifically, Google and Verizon's agreement could prevent Verizon from offering some prioritization to the biggest bidders who want better delivery of content on its DSL and fiber networks, according to the sources. But that wouldn’t apply to mobile phones, the sources said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the companies have not officially made their announcement.
And Verizon could offer some managed services -- better quality to some Web sites such as those offering health care services, the sources said. But some analysts speculate that managed services could also include discounted YouTube and other services to FiOs customers at better quality.
Google did not reply to a request for comment.
The rumored deal drew criticism from public interest groups, who have argued that the country's biggest Web firms and broadband service providers shouldn't have such a strong influence on how federal rules are formed on Internet access.
“The fate of the Internet is too large a matter to be decided by negotiations involving two companies, even companies as big as Verizon and Google, or even the six companies and groups engaged in other discussions at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on similar topics," said Gigi Sohn, president of public interest group Public Knowledge.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's chief of staff has orchestrated meetings with Google, AT&T, Verizon, Skype, a cable trade association and the Open Internet Coalition in hopes of presenting to Congress consensus ground rules that would prevent network operators from blocking or slowing down certain Web sites. Genachowski wants an agreement that will encourage lawmakers to introduce net neutrality legislation as the FCC struggles over its ability to regulate broadband providers.
The six officials at the FCC meetings, which continued Wednesday and will resume Thursday, are hashing out details on whether wireless phones should be included in legislation and if carriers can charge for better quality of service.
The FCC declined to comment specifically on Verizon and Google's deal, but an FCC spokesperson said: "The broad stakeholder discussions continue to actively include Google and Verizon.”
According to the sources, Verizon and Google have met separately to reach an agreement they will tout as an example of successful self-regulation. Once bitter opponents in the so-called net neutrality debate, the firms have grown closer on the issue as their business ties have also strengthened. Verizon partners with Google on their Android wireless phones.
Their actions could set a course for the FCC meetings and what ultimately the parties could present to lawmakers, analysts said.
More from Post Tech:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Nevermind,
Yay!

Concerned with rhe AT&T&T merger? FCC Listens...

http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/h04zw/fcc_opens_comment_period_for_att_takeover_of/" target="_blank
Looks like the FCC wants to listen to the public for once...
Thoughts?

I am a T-Mobile USA Customer. My contract ends right about the time when the merger should be complete. I personally have mixed thoughts about this merger, mainly because of how much AT&T charges for their plans. I am currently in one of the old 1500 minutes family plan + unlimited mobile to mobile + unlimited nights and weekends + unlimited data + unlimited messaging for $99.99 monthly (this plan doesnt exist anymore)
Honestly, as long as I get to keep my plans as it is and have access to the latest phones at a discounted rate like i am now, I'll be happy.

I can't wait for the merger to go through

The thread is a bit flaky here is the posting from the PDF:
I personally think we ALL NEED TO EMAIL AND MOBARD COMMENTS ABOUT THIS TO THE FCC !!!
IF not then we get what we get---
Here is the public notice:
PUBLIC NOTICE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
445 TWELFTH STREET, S.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 DA 11-799
News media information 202/418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202/418-2830 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov
Released: April 28, 2011
AT&T INC. AND DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG SEEK FCC CONSENT TO THE TRANSFER OF
CONTROL OF THE LICENSES AND AUTHORIZATIONS HELD BY T-MOBILE USA, INC.
AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES TO AT&T INC.
WT Docket No. 11-65
PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED
Petitions To Deny Due: May 31, 2011
Oppositions Due: June 10, 2011
Replies Due: June 20, 2011
I. INTRODUCTION
AT&T Inc. (“AT&T”) and Deutsche Telekom AG (“Deutsche Telekom”) have filed applications
pursuant to sections 214 and 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,1 seeking
Commission consent to the transfer of control of the licenses and authorizations held by T-Mobile USA,
Inc. (“T-Mobile USA”) and its wholly-owned, majority-owned, and controlled subsidiaries to AT&T
(AT&T, Deutsche Telekom, and T-Mobile USA are collectively referred to as the “Applicants”).
Specifically, AT&T has agreed to acquire from Deutsche Telekom all of the stock of T-Mobile USA,
subject to obtaining all necessary regulatory approvals.
II. SECTION 310(d) APPLICATIONS
Parts 22, 24, 27, and 101 – Wireless Radio Services Applications
The following applications for consent to the transfer of control of licenses held by certain
subsidiaries of T-Mobile USA from Deutsche Telekom to AT&T have been assigned the file numbers
listed below.
File No. Licensee Lead Call Sign
00046693832 T-Mobile License LLC KNLF202
0004673673 Cook Inlet GSM IV PCS Holdings, LLC KNLF504
0004673727 Powertel Memphis Licenses, Inc. KNLF255
0004673730 SunCom Wireless License Company, LLC KNKN557
0004673732 T-Mobile Puerto Rico LLC KNLF249
1 47 U.S.C. §§ 214, 310(d).
2 This application is the lead application for the wireless radio services.
2
File No. Licensee Lead Call Sign
0004673735 T-Mobile West Corporation KNLF227
0004673737 VoiceStream Pittsburgh, L.P. KNLF242
0004673739 WALLC License, LLC WPNL499
0004675960 CookInlet/VS GSM VII PCS, LLC WQCS389
0004703157 Iowa Wireless Services Holding Corporation KNLG769
Parts 24 and 27 – Wireless Radio Services Applications – De Facto Transfer and Spectrum
Manager Leasing Arrangements
The following applications for consent to the transfer of control of spectrum leasing arrangements
held by certain subsidiaries of T-Mobile USA from Deutsche Telekom to AT&T have been assigned the
file numbers listed below:
File No. Lessee Lead Lease ID
Number
6013CWSL11 T-Mobile License LLC L000008117
6014CWSL11 T-Mobile License LLC L000008120
6015ALSL11 Iowa Wireless Services Holding Corporation L000001014
6016CWSL11 Iowa Wireless Services Holding Corporation L000001109
0004698766 Iowa Wireless Services Holding Corporation L000007750
III. SECTION 214 AUTHORIZATIONS
The following application for consent to the transfer of control of international section 214
authorizations held by T-Mobile USA and certain of its subsidiaries from Deutsche Telekom to AT&T
have been assigned the file numbers listed below.
File No. Authorization Holder Authorization Number
ITC-T/C-20110421-00109 Iowa Wireless Services Holding
Corporation
ITC-214-20020513-00251
ITC-T/C-20110421-00110 T-Mobile Puerto Rico LLC ITC-214-20070626-00246
ITC-T/C-20110421-00111 T-Mobile USA, Inc. ITC-214-20061004-00452
ITC-T/C-20110421-00112 T-Mobile USA, Inc. ITC-214-19960930-00473
IV. EX PARTE STATUS OF THIS PROCEEDING
Pursuant to section 1.1200(a) of the Commission’s rules,3 the Commission may adopt modified or
more stringent ex parte procedures in particular proceedings if the public interest so requires.4 We have
3 47 C.F.R. § 1.1200(a).
4 On February 1, 2011, the Commission adopted a Report and Order amending and revising the Commission’s rules
on ex parte presentations. Amendment of the Commission’s Ex Parte Rules and Other Procedural Rules, GC
Docket No. 10-43, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 11-11 (rel. Feb. 2, 2011).
The revised rules are awaiting publication in the Federal Register, and are not yet effective.
3
previously announced that this proceeding will be governed by permit-but-disclose ex parte procedures
that are applicable to non-restricted proceedings under section 1.1206 of the Commission’s rules.5
Parties making oral ex parte presentations are directed to the Commission’s statement
reemphasizing the public’s responsibility in permit-but-disclose proceedings and are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the presentation must contain the presentation’s substance and not merely list the
subjects discussed.6 More than a one- or two-sentence description of the views and arguments presented is
generally required.7 Other rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in section
1.1206(b) as well.8 We urge parties to use the Electronic Comment Filing System (“ECFS”) to file ex
parte submissions.9
V. REQUESTS FOR EX PARTE MEETINGS
All requests for meetings with Commission staff regarding this Docket should be made online,
using the link at http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/att-tmobile_exparte-meeting-request/. Those
who lack Internet access may direct their requests to Morasha Younger, Spectrum and Competition
Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 202.418.1203.
VI. GENERAL INFORMATION
The transfer of control applications referenced herein have been found, upon initial review, to be
acceptable for filing. The Commission reserves the right to return any application if, upon further
examination, it is determined to be defective and not in conformance with the Commission’s rules or
policies. Final action on these applications will not be taken earlier than thirty-one days following the
date of this Public Notice.10
Interested parties must file petitions to deny no later than May 31, 2011. Persons and entities that
file petitions to deny become parties to the proceeding. They may participate fully in the proceeding,
including seeking access to any confidential information that may be filed under a protective order,
seeking reconsideration of decisions, and filing appeals of a final decision to the courts. Oppositions to
such pleadings must be filed no later than June 10, 2011. Replies to such pleadings must be filed no later
than June 20, 2011. All filings concerning matters referenced in this Public Notice should refer to DA
11-799 and WT Docket No. 11-65, as well as the specific file numbers of the individual applications or
other matters to which the filings pertain.
To allow the Commission to consider fully all substantive issues regarding the Applications in
as timely and efficient a manner as possible, petitioners and commenters should raise all issues in
5 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206; see Commission Opens Docket for Proposed Transfer of Control of T-Mobile USA, Inc. and
Its Subsidiaries From Deutsche Telekom AG to AT&T Inc., WT Docket No. 11-65, Public Notice, DA 11-673 (rel.
Apr. 14, 2011); Commission Announces That the Applications Proposing the Transfer of Control of the Licenses
and Authorizations Held by T-Mobile USA, Inc. and Its Subsidiaries From Deutsche Telekom AG to AT&T Inc.
Have Been Filed and Permit-But-Disclose Ex Parte Procedures Now Apply, WT Docket No. 11-65, Public Notice,
DA 11-722 (rel. Apr. 22, 2011).
6 See Commission Emphasizes the Public’s Responsibilities in Permit-But-Disclose Proceedings, Public Notice, 15
FCC Rcd 19945 (2000).
7 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2).
8 Id. § 1.1206(b).
9 See discussion infra Part VI.
10 See 47 U.S.C. § 309(b).
4
their initial filings. New issues may not be raised in responses or replies.11 A party or interested
person seeking to raise a new issue after the pleading cycle has closed must show good cause why it
was not possible for it to have raised the issue previously. Submissions after the pleading cycle has
closed that seek to raise new issues based on new facts or newly discovered facts should be filed
within 15 days after such facts are discovered. Absent such a showing of good cause, any issues not
timely raised may be disregarded by the Commission.
Under the Commission’s current procedures for the submission of filings and other documents,12
submissions in this matter may be filed electronically (i.e., through ECFS) or by hand delivery to the
Commission.
· If filed by ECFS,13 comments shall be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to
http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should
include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket number.
Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail.
· If filed by paper, the original and four copies of each filing must be filed by hand or messenger
delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street, S.W., Room TW-A325, Washington, D.C.
20554. The filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be
held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering
the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and
Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S.
Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Office of
the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
One copy of each pleading must be delivered electronically, by e-mail or facsimile, or if delivered
as paper copy, by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (according to the procedures set forth above for paper filings), to:
(1) the Commission’s duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., at [email protected] or
(202) 488-5563 (facsimile); (2) Kathy Harris, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
(WTB), at [email protected] or (202) 418-7447 (facsimile); (3) Kate Matraves, Spectrum and
Competition Policy Division, WTB, at [email protected] or (202) 418-7447 (facsimile);
(4) Jim Bird, Office of General Counsel, at [email protected] or (202) 418-1234 (facsimile); and
(5) David Krech, Policy Division, International Bureau, at [email protected] or (202) 418-2824
(facsimile). Any submission that is e-mailed to Best Copy and Printing, Kathy Harris, Kate Matraves, Jim
Bird, and David Krech should include in the subject line of the e-mail: (1) WT Docket No. 11-65; (2) the
name of the submitting party; and (3) a brief description or title identifying the type of document being
submitted (e.g., WT Docket No. 11-65, Widget Corp., Notice of Ex Parte Communication).
Copies of the application and any subsequently-filed documents in this matter may be obtained
from Best Copy and Printing, Inc. in person at 445 12th Street, S.W., Room CY-B402, Washington, D.C.
20554, via telephone at (202) 488-5300, via facsimile at (202) 488-5563, or via e-mail at
11 See 47 C.F.R. §1.45(c).
12 See FCC Announces Change in Filing Location for Paper Documents, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 14312 (2009).
13 See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, GC Docket No. 97-113, Report and Order, 13
FCC Rcd 11322 (1998).
5
[email protected]. The application and any associated documents are also available for public
inspection and copying during normal reference room hours at the following Commission office: FCC
Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room CY-A257, Washington, D.C. 20554. The
application is also available electronically through ECFS, which may be accessed on the Commission’s
Internet website at http://www.fcc.gov. In addition, the applications are available electronically through
ULS, which may be accessed on the Commission’s Internet website. Additional information regarding
the proposed transaction will be available on the FCC’s Office of General Counsel’s AT&T/T-Mobile
website, http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/att-tmobile.html, which will contain an unofficial listing and
electronic copies of materials in this matter.
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations for filing comments (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: [email protected]; phone: (202) 418-0530; or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
For further information, send an email to AT&[email protected]
-FCC

I've been a T-Mobile customer for seven or eight years now and have never regretted a moment of it. These people have always gone above and beyond to make me feel like I was worth something to them as a customer and a person. I haven't had to contact them often, but when I did, I always knew I would hang up the phone with a smile on my face. T-Mobile US has one of the best customer service departments in the world in terms of customer satisfaction. If I were planning to commit suicide, I would probably call T-Mobile, since I know they would be able to talk me down.
On the flip side of this is AT&T, with whom I've had some of the worst customer service and just service in general in all of my life. I started out with my first cellular device through Cingular Wireless. I wouldn't say they were the best service (they were far from it), but most of my friends and family were on the network and it was in the early days of the talk for free within the network deals. AT&T came along a few years later and ruined any creditability Cingular Wireless had provided me. When the networks in my area finally were updated to EDGE through AT&T, I immediately began having problems with dropped calls and spastic data rates. Calling to complain about this service garnered me a generic response from them along the lines of "What do you want me to do about it?" The customer should not be the one who suggests that the cellular connection to the tower needs to be reset.
After a full year of waiting out my contract and the remainder of my patience with them, I began searching for an alternative solution. I narrowed down my list to All-Tel and T-Mobile for their outstanding customer service. T-Mobile won me over, since, at the time, I was using my HP iPAQ hw6945 (HTC Sable), and needed a GSM network. Since that day, I have constantly raved about their phenomenal customer service, support and network speed. I was also blown away by their astonishingly competitive pricing.
I am currently paying the same $50 for service that I was when I signed up initially. I have a plan consisting of 1000 minutes a month (I can't think of a time when I would ever need more than that), unlimited text, and unlimited data ($30+$10+$10). This data plan also includes tethering for free. I haven't been under a contract with them since the first year I was with them, as it was required. I have never been hassled about updating my terms of service, or anything of the sort. It has been one completely happy ride other than the spotty 3G coverage which has been growing rapidly.
With all of this considered, I must say that I am completely shocked and appalled that the company is being sold off to the only other GSM network in the country with a national footprint: AT&T. Though the transaction isn't completely finalized yet, I see no reason why the FCC would oppose this as they also let Verizon's "Net Neutrality" rules pass, even though they were completely one-sided.
Other than customer service from AT&T (or lack thereof, rather), this also presents yet another problem for the customers of T-Mobile: 4G. We will now be set to move into AT&T's field of using LTE instead of HSPA+ or WiMax for our 4G coverage. For those of you who don't already know, LTE is not the happy trail to the Internet you may think.
The LTE standard was designed with carriers in mind, not consumers. This means that the format allows carriers to control the content they show you. You will begin seeing tiered data plans with access to partial content coming as soon as the networks expand. For example, if you decide to get the cheapest data plan, you will not only be limited in maximum data caps, but also certain things like YouTube may be filtered out of your service because you would have to pay extra for it. AT&T and Verizon have already come out and said that this will happen with services like Skype and YouTube. WiMax does not allow any of this as it was intended to be an open format set up with end users in mind. HSPA+ simply doesn't support the concept.
Am I the only one concerned here? I think if this does go through, I'll be booking it over the Sprint. I am not fond of CDMA networks, but it's FAR better than the alternative.
Sources:
Lots of good LTE vs. WiMax links in this thread
AT&T/T-Mobile US acquisition details

Sprint welcomes you wimax all the way unless u live in a basement then ur screwed
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA Premium App

I have been a T-Mobile customer since the release of the Samsung Vibrant (so about 7 months or so). I have gone from that device to the G2 to the Mytouch 4G and now own a Nexus S, while not on contract, I still enjoy T-Mobile, the price is great and I do not need a contract. AT&T is promising that no one with a contract will have to change their contract, but what about me? I am one of those people that dislike a long term commitment, especially since I cannot see myself using a device longer than a year. I also cannot afford to be tied to a contract, I enjoy the service it's fast and very reliable. AT&T would make me either get a 2 year contract or take a hike, which is ridiculous. The idea that every single T-Mobile subscriber will go to AT&T and form THE biggest number of subscribers is ludicrous. I doubt people will be willing to pay the price that AT&T has for this "super network" mostly due to the fact that their service is downright dreadful, and extremely expensive, plus the majority, if not all devices that T-Mobile users own... most likely are not going to be compatible with the new Network, meaning we will also need new devices.
In all I think this shouldn't happen, it would also be unfair to the competition and to me and several other people, who rely on this great, cost friendly service. I hope this doesn't happen because if this does, I seriously don't know which network to turn to, their prices are just that great.

This deal to me, who is a tmobile usa customer is some BS. First of all if this deal goes through, and I am forced by AT&T to upgrade b/c tmobile cell towers are turned off or changed to a different frequency, i will be screwed b/c there is no way in hell i would be able to pay for an at&t plan or even worst will be forced to stay with my current phone but probably only receive edge signal instead of 3g/4g signal. The whole reason i left Verizon and went to Tmobile is b/c its significantly cheaper than Verizon and also cheaper than AT&T and the service is good.
Second AT&T claims that this merger will stimulate the economy but how would it when tmobile employees will be layed off b/c a lot of employees at tmobile will have the same jobs as AT&T employees, so instead of AT&T paying 2 people to do 1 job, they will most likely lay off the Tmobile employees. how is laying off employees going to stimulate and help grow economy in USA.
Third if the FCC allow this deal to go through then we in the USA will be left with one GSM carrier, forming a monopoly in the GSM field in the USA, so that means AT&T will be able to up the price of plans, phones and etc., b/c they are the only GSM carrier left and for all of us who only won't GSM phones we will be screwed b/c we won't have any other option but to pay what AT&T says b/c they have a monopoly. Also I think the FCC should take into account that the reason why phone prices/plans are the way they are is b/c there are 4 major carriers, by reducing it to 3, that means less competition, and when there is less competition the customers feel the pain of that. I don't think they want to force people to decide which to choose between "Food" or "having a cellphone" b/c as it is, our economy here in the States is in harsh times, people are losing jobs and for the people who have jobs, wages aren't going up, so if a cell phone company raises prices, then people will be screwed b/c of this harsh economy and will be forced to have to make cut backs to save money and one of those just might be having a cell phone.
I hope FCC that no one but at&t will benefit from this deal and not consumers.
For anyone that wants to read an article that looks at it from both points of view check this link out: http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/26/att-t-mobile-usa-case-merger/
the person who wrote article, wrote it beautifully and looks at a lot of details about the merger.

just posed to stop merger

I switched to T-Mo to get away from att, their expensive plans and bad service (customer service and radio reception).
Too bad the form needs you to identify yourself publicly.
NOTE: The filing you are making is a public filing.
Any information that you submit will be available to the general public.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

I have been with AT&T since Novemeber 3, 1995 when I bought my first phone at Best Buy. I still have the receipt. I was still in college at the time. Back then customer service was very good. You could switch your plan any month with no contract extensions. You could get a discount on a phone every year. And your contract was only 1 year with each phone purchase.
Then cingular came. I had heard of rollover minutes and was excited to have them. Then, after accumulating about 8000 rollover minutes I wanted to lower my plan, since I obvously was paying for more than I needed. Cingular wanted me to extend my contract for 2 years, and lose almost all of my rollover minutes. Instead, I kept my existing plan and filed a complaint at bbb.org. Then cingular contacted me. They ended up letting me lower my plan and keep all the rollover minutes and I did not need to extend my contract. But, I should not have needed to do this. Cingular support was horrible.
I had stuck with them, because I like my phone number. Now there is number portability, so this is not an issue.
Since then Cingular became AT&T again. AT&T coverage used to always be the best in some areas that I would vacation and was great where I lived. I have been considering switching to T-Mobile for a long time, but I get bored with my phone and ugrade after 18 months, which extends my contact for 2 years. Now the fees to break the contract early are $350, minus $10 for every month you are with them, with a sudden drop to $0 after 2 full years. This is alot more than it used to be.
I am locked with AT&T for a little more than a year. They no longer have an unlimited data plan, unless you are grandfathered in. There is now only a $10 text message plan or pay as you go. Not sure why they can't just count a text as 1 minute, or even 2 minutes. Not that any carrier does that, but effectively the prepaid plans give you that.
I had not cared much about my bill for the last 3 years, because I have been able to expense it to work and get reimbursed. That is potentially changing. If not for the pending merger, I would consider paying to prematurely cancel and switch to AT&T. I never understood why carriers didn't offer to pay the cancellation fee to get new users and bill something monthly or tack it onto the new cancelation fee or require more time based on the amount paid.
Not having competition is only going to give AT&T no reason to lower their prices or work harder for the consumers.
But this merger will not stimulate or hurt the economy. No one will not have a cell phone as a result of this. Paying 2 people to do the same thing makes no sense. Employing someone simply for the sake of giving someone a job does not help the economy or anyone in the long term. It just creates complacency. The stimulating factor is that if the person let go has talent, then that talent will eventually be consumed by another company in potentially a whole new industry that does not exist. It really sucks to be that person initially though. If call centers were already operating at full capacity, then they will still need the full amount of staff. In malls, there will be just 1 store instead of 2. Landlords will be collecting less rent. Total tower usage is not going to go down. So, the same number of workers to maintain them will be needed. I suspect towers will be outfitted to handle all frequencies of AT&T and T-Mobile, so this will require additional workers. It is really going to just be a shifting around of who has a job and who doesn't, but the net will be virtually no change.
In the end though consumer choice is really being hurt. I am normally all about the free market taking care of itself, but we know this does not work in monopoly or near monopoly situations.
Because this will hurt consumers and it effectively becomes a monopoly, I am against this merger.

Im a jobless man, have a three year old phone (though Im a tech-loving guy and desperately want to upgrade my device) and use internet (google voice and skype) for making calls. However I needed a phone number to put on my job application forms and to recieve calls from the employers. I couldnt afford the post-paid packages of any network so I thought about prepaid. After alot of research, I found that T-mobile has the most affordable prepaid package ($10 for 30 minutes valid for 3 months). So Im using this cheapest available plan now. Im really afraid that if I dont get a job and this great company is taken over by AT&T , what would happen to me and many others like me. Im married, have children and cant afford paying big phone bills. GOD help us.

PixoNova said:
I can't wait for the merger to go through
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 ... I also am hoping it will happen. Canned T-Mobile and now am exclusively AT&T. AT&T needs the bandwidth to advance their 4G/LTE network. Let T-Mobile be gobbled up with ferocity!

Just posted stop the Merger!

MartyLK said:
+1 ... I also am hoping it will happen. Canned T-Mobile and now am exclusively AT&T. AT&T needs the bandwidth to advance their 4G/LTE network. Let T-Mobile be gobbled up with ferocity!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the whole thing about bandwidth is a bunch of baloney, AT&T have so much spectrum through there last merger, that they are not using a lot of there bandwidth. The reason why they need tmobile is b/c tmobile spectrum/radio frequencies are mostly unified on similar frequencies, so it would be most cost effective and cheaper to just by tmobile and use there network which is more unified and change it into LTE rather than using there own AT&T network; whose network refrequencies are not unified.
For AT&T to actual go LTE without using Tmobile network they would have to first unify there radio frequency then go LTE which would cost them to much money.

I am against this merger, "ma bell" is trying to buy her way to recreate the "empire"
their symbol looks like the death star for a reason

If the merge happens then that means htc sensation will be available for at&t??? If so, I cant wait for the merge to happen. Yipppeeeekayay!

mjmonsada said:
If the merge happens then that means htc sensation will be available for at&t??? If so, I cant wait for the merge to happen. Yipppeeeekayay!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you forgot the MF

im against the "merger". att has plenty of bandwith and i dont think people with tmobile want to go from good customer service to none at all. im just glad i have verizon with a real 4g lte network and not att's 4g (which is just hspa). if anyone on tmobile is considering switching carriers, well ill just give you a glimpse into what verizons 4g is like

m356f1 said:
im against the "merger". att has plenty of bandwith and i dont think people with tmobile want to go from good customer service to none at all. im just glad i have verizon with a real 4g lte network and not att's 4g (which is just hspa). if anyone on tmobile is considering switching carriers, well ill just give you a glimpse into what verizons 4g is like
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That speed was amazing but to be fair, we won't know if Verizon LTE will remain as fast as it is now, until they have more people on LTE using there network, then lets see how fast there speeds are.

Report: Gov’t scooping up Verizon phone records

http://www.timesleader.com/news/news/576268/Report:-Govt-scooping-up-Verizon-phone-records
I don't have verizon but i thought this was a very interesting story.
Report: Gov’t scooping up Verizon phone records
Last Modified: June 06. 2013 7:02AM
Associated Press
(AP) — The National Security Agency currently is collecting the telephone records of millions of U.S. customers of Verizon under a top secret court order, Britain’s Guardian newspaper said Wednesday.
The order was granted by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on April 25 and was good until July 19, the newspaper said. The order requires Verizon, one of the nation’s largest telecommunications companies, on an “ongoing, daily basis” to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the U.S. and between the U.S. and other countries.
The newspaper said the document, a copy of which it had obtained, shows for the first time that under the Obama administration the communication records of millions of U.S. citizens were being collected indiscriminately and in bulk, regardless of whether they were suspected of any wrongdoing.
The Associated Press could not authenticate the order because documents from the court are classified.
Verizon spokesman Ed McFadden said Wednesday the company had no comment. The White House declined comment and referred questions to the NSA. The NSA had no immediate comment.
Verizon Communications Inc. listed 121 million customers in its first-quarter earnings report this April — 98.9 million wireless customers, 11.7 million residential phone lines and about 10 million commercial lines. The court order didn’t specify which type of phone customers’ records were being tracked.
Under the terms of the order, the phone numbers of both parties on a call are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls. The contents of the conversation itself are not covered, The Guardian said.
The broad, unlimited nature of the records being handed over to the NSA is unusual. FISA court orders typically direct the production of records pertaining to a specific named target suspected of being an agent of a terrorist group or foreign state, or a finite set of individually named targets. NSA warrantless wiretapping during the George W. Bush administration after the 9/11 attacks was very controversial.
The FISA court order, signed by Judge Roger Vinson, compelled Verizon to produce to the NSA electronic copies of “all call detail records or telephony metadata created by Verizon for communications between the United States and abroad” or “wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls,” The Guardian said.
The law on which the order explicitly relies is the “business records” provision of the USA Patriot Act.
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.

Yeah I read about this last night on the guardian, but are people blaming Verizon...? I mean it sounds like a court order from the government body, NSA? So, should we blame Verizon? I imagine they are going to get the blame either way, problem is, they couldn't just tell people either because they would still come off worse as people wouldn't trust them, even though they sound like they didn't have a choice.
It's a shame really, American has been far too paranoid since 9/11, it's basically a security state now, or at least from the numerous stories I've heard in the past, this just perpetuates the concern.
Sent from my LT18i using xda app-developers app

Not sure what's funnier, the fact that people are actually surprised about this, or that The Guardian reported it before anyone in the USA did.
Send From My Samsung Galaxy S3 Using Tapatalk 2

ShadowLea said:
Not sure what's funnier, the fact that people are actually surprised about this, or that The Guardian reported it before anyone in the USA did.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1

I'm not surprised by any of this, it just reaffirms my thoughts on government. The Bush (Jr) Administration did this with ALL of the major telecoms so I'm not sure if Verizon has been clear of this since then.
Sent from my Infected Rezound using xda app-developers app

Robo calls

We bought a landline phone system with a feature that has eliminated robo calls by forcing the caller to press the number 8, then state their name. We went from dozens of robo calls a week to zero. Is there a reason this can't be a carrier feature or an app for cell phones?
Oh, and if I see you stranded with a broken down car on the side of the road, don't expect me to stop and offer you help. You were offered an extended warranty several times.

MightymomTN said:
We bought a landline phone system with a feature that has eliminated robo calls by forcing the caller to press the number 8, then state their name. We went from dozens of robo calls a week to zero. Is there a reason this can't be a carrier feature or an app for cell phones?
Oh, and if I see you stranded with a broken down car on the side of the road, don't expect me to stop and offer you help. You were offered an extended warranty several times.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm assuming the service was offered and controlled by the telephone service provider. That being the case, for such a service to be available on mobile platforms, it would have to be offered by the mobile service provider, which I don't see happening given that trackers, ads and such are the lifeblood of the mobile device and mobile app developers, it is, after all, how they make their money with all the money and incentives being passed back and forth between mobile device manufacturers, mobile software/app developers, ad agencies and tracking services. Restricting the things that are associated to trackers, ads and robo callers would kill their profits.
The manufacturers, the service providers, the developers and the tracking/ad agencies are in bed together, what you suggest is counter to ther business model. Doing what you want them to do would make things much more expensive on us users.

Droidriven said:
I'm assuming the service was offered and controlled by the telephone service provider. That being the case, for such a service to be available on mobile platforms, it would have to be offered by the mobile service provider, which I don't see happening given that trackers, ads and such are the lifeblood of the mobile device and mobile app developers, it is, after all, how they make their money with all the money and incentives being passed back and forth between mobile device manufacturers, mobile software/app developers, ad agencies and tracking services. Restricting the things that are associated to trackers, ads and robo callers would kill their profits.
The manufacturers, the service providers, the developers and the tracking/ad agencies are in bed together, what you suggest is counter to ther business model. Doing what you want them to do would make things much more expensive on us users.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, it's actually the phone system. It's the sole reason for buying it.

MightymomTN said:
No, it's actually the phone system. It's the sole reason for buying it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then its incorporated into the hardware. Either way, I don't see it being a thing in mobile devices, as I stated earlier, it would be counterproductive to how the whole mobile communication system works.