Related
Everybody says changing esn is illegal.
1. Does anybody know anybody who got in trouble for changing esn?
2. say i got two devices, if i swap esn's of both of these device. It that illegal ? If yes can anybody point me to the law that states its illegal?
3. I heard some repair centers change esns, are they licensed to do that, do they have any kind of special permit?
thanks
I'm still searching for proof for you at a federal level (I'm 100% sure this is illegal in the USA) but I found something on a state level that shows it.
http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=180670013.K
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/97-98/bill/asm/ab_1101-1150/ab_1127_bill_19970703_amended_sen.html
http://www.romingerlegal.com/new_jersey/appellate/a4869-96.opn.html
http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/sl1997/sl.194.htm
So what's that now, Idaho, California, New Jersey and Colorado? I think the point's been proven, it is completely illegal to alter your ESN without the consent of the manufacturer of the device.
i read those, it doesn't look like it is illegal if you paid for phone service, and you swap the esn to another device, as long as you discontinue using the first device. it isn't as if you are adding a second line of service for no money, you're just putting it on a new phone.
ehow has a page describing how to do it, in fact. i just googled esn switching, and there it was, seems fairly simple
Black93300ZX said:
I think the point's been proven, it is completely illegal to alter your ESN without the consent of the manufacturer of the device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL, only avoiding payment is against the law. some banned people nowadays
Hmm
Sorry to resurrect but was researching this myself recently.
The controlling federal law seems to be: http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/1029.html
HOWever, I think the law is DEFINITELY worded vaguely and/or NOT aimed at the use the OP might have in mind (having two phones around the house instead of one--just like how people like to have have 2 landline extensions in a single dwelling).
My apologies if this kind of conversation is frowned upon/not allowed. A warning by any senior member/mod and I'll be sure to not pursue this any further on XDA.
Thanks!
Panamaniac
It's a great way to trick phone company's into giving you cheaper internet plans if you switch the esn from a dumb phone to a smart phone.
That being said don't do it its not worth the trouble you could get into
Sent from my HTC Glacier using XDA App
thenotoriouspie said:
It's a great way to trick phone company's into giving you cheaper internet plans if you switch the esn from a dumb phone to a smart phone.
That being said don't do it its not worth the trouble you could get into
Sent from my HTC Glacier using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not in every case. Like maybe if you want to use the smartphone without paying for data service (because you don't want data service).
See, with GSM carriers, they can see what phone you're using IF it's in their database. And the phone will only be in their database IF and ONLY IF it is branded by them. So if I'm on T-Mobile and I pop my SIM card into an unlocked AT&T phone/totally unbranded straight-from-manufacturer phone, they don't see what phone I'm using. Want proof? Do that and log in to your account online. Normally, the website will tell you what phone you're using. Instead, this time it'll show you a generic icon/question mark. So if you want to use an iPhone on T-Mobile without a data plan, you can do that. If you want to use a Blackberry on AT&T without a data plan? Also not a problem. As long as they don't know you're using a smartphone, a data plan won't automatically be forced onto your account. GSM gives you choice and freedom.
With CDMA carriers, we have to go through great lengths just so that we can use the phone we want, or just so that we can use a phone we already paid for. If I'm on Verizon with a Blackberry Bold and I want to jump on Sprint, why should I have to pay for the same exact phone AGAIN? It's really not hard to reprovision a CDMA phone to work on another carrier. All you need to do is install the right APN and MMS settings and the carrier's PRL. Then just flash the carrier's ROM onto the phone (I'm simplifying it; it varies by phone).
CHANGING, NOT CLONING, ESNs is ok. It's the equivalent of swapping SIM cards. In the US, the only national CDMA carrier that offers less-than-unlimited plans is Verizon. So what if I want to use my Blackberry Bold with a 150MB data plan? Is that really a crime? I can STILL opt for the unlimited, even if I put a dumbphone's ESN on the Blackberry. Why am I forced to have these plan options on my account? Why can we bring our own phones with GSM carriers, but not CDMA carriers? It IS possible for GSM carriers to block phones not sold from their network from getting service. All they would have to do is block the IMEI numbers not from phones they've sold. But they don't do this. Why can't CDMA carriers just activate these phones? MetroPCS does it in some locations, officially (aka MetroFlash). They warn you that only Calls and SMS will work, but that's fixable on your own, AND you're able to use your own phone from any carrier.
CDMA carriers need to start activating off-network phones. It's just not fair, especially when many of the phones are the same on both networks.
Product F(RED) said:
CDMA carriers need to start activating off-network phones. It's just not fair, especially when many of the phones are the same on both networks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow. It does not work this way over there in US? You can use whatever CDMA device here, you just tell the ESN to the carrier so that it gets activated on their network. You guys are weird there.
Money hungry politicians and corporations.
however I have yet to see a court case setting precedence. Until that day, I will consider ESN repair and or swapping a completely legitimate practice.
Well ESN swaps are one thing--but what I'd really like is to clone onto an old handset simply so I can have TWO IN THE HOUSE--nothing illicit here, it's just a pain in the ass to have to go find the thing, since I don't own a landline. In that connection, people have multiple receivers on landlines for this very purpose--because cell phones work great as cell phones, but not so great as HOUSE phones....
But given the 10-year prison sentence (though I don't think I'd be prosecuted) methinks I'll steer clear of actually trying to clone...
People tend to make the VIN comparison.
Although you CAN (and I have) apply for a new vin in certain circumstances.
It's like wanting to have multiple honda accords with the same vin.
Even if you don't want to defraud an insurance company, you technically could if you wrecked one.
Now, though I agree with you and thing you SHOULD be able to clone your own esn. The FCC is very clear about cloneing.
What they aren't clear about is swapping without cloning.
The bulk of the argument resides around the words "intent to defraud"
willpower102 said:
Money hungry politicians and corporations.
however I have yet to see a court case setting precedence. Until that day, I will consider ESN repair and or swapping a completely legitimate practice.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/06/carterfone-40-years.ars
Happy reading.
(If you want the actual decision, then here you are: http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/FCCOps/1968/13F2-420.html)
Old? You bet. Applicable? I'd argue it
Product F(RED) said:
Not in every case. Like maybe if you want to use the smartphone without paying for data service (because you don't want data service).
See, with GSM carriers, they can see what phone you're using IF it's in their database. And the phone will only be in their database IF and ONLY IF it is branded by them. So if I'm on T-Mobile and I pop my SIM card into an unlocked AT&T phone/totally unbranded straight-from-manufacturer phone, they don't see what phone I'm using. Want proof? Do that and log in to your account online. Normally, the website will tell you what phone you're using. Instead, this time it'll show you a generic icon/question mark. So if you want to use an iPhone on T-Mobile without a data plan, you can do that. If you want to use a Blackberry on AT&T without a data plan? Also not a problem. As long as they don't know you're using a smartphone, a data plan won't automatically be forced onto your account. GSM gives you choice and freedom.
With CDMA carriers, we have to go through great lengths just so that we can use the phone we want, or just so that we can use a phone we already paid for. If I'm on Verizon with a Blackberry Bold and I want to jump on Sprint, why should I have to pay for the same exact phone AGAIN? It's really not hard to reprovision a CDMA phone to work on another carrier. All you need to do is install the right APN and MMS settings and the carrier's PRL. Then just flash the carrier's ROM onto the phone (I'm simplifying it; it varies by phone).
CHANGING, NOT CLONING, ESNs is ok. It's the equivalent of swapping SIM cards. In the US, the only national CDMA carrier that offers less-than-unlimited plans is Verizon. So what if I want to use my Blackberry Bold with a 150MB data plan? Is that really a crime? I can STILL opt for the unlimited, even if I put a dumbphone's ESN on the Blackberry. Why am I forced to have these plan options on my account? Why can we bring our own phones with GSM carriers, but not CDMA carriers? It IS possible for GSM carriers to block phones not sold from their network from getting service. All they would have to do is block the IMEI numbers not from phones they've sold. But they don't do this. Why can't CDMA carriers just activate these phones? MetroPCS does it in some locations, officially (aka MetroFlash). They warn you that only Calls and SMS will work, but that's fixable on your own, AND you're able to use your own phone from any carrier.
CDMA carriers need to start activating off-network phones. It's just not fair, especially when many of the phones are the same on both networks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe with Verizon but try to do that with sprint and see what happens if you get caught.
Sent from my HTC Glacier using XDA App
Haha, bad news I'm guessing!
It's ok, I just scored a free Airave anyway (which is apparently immediately eligible for a $150 discount on an "upgrade" to a phone?!? Lolz).
SoberGuy said:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/06/carterfone-40-years.ars
Happy reading.
(If you want the actual decision, then here you are: http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/FCCOps/1968/13F2-420.html)
Old? You bet. Applicable? I'd argue it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks! This is not what I was expecting... In fact this gives even more credence to the practice.
If I had enough money, I would try to indite myself just to fight it. But I don't have the sort of money to fight that legal battle.
willpower102 said:
Thanks! This is not what I was expecting... In fact this gives even more credence to the practice.
If I had enough money, I would try to indite myself just to fight it. But I don't have the sort of money to fight that legal battle.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think from that perspective it's a losing battle. Saying "Judge, the big TelCo is doing something illegal, so I had to do something the FCC deems illegal" is not exactly the best idea. Having that same TelCo refuse you service with a different phone, being forced to buy one of theirs, and then suing them to recover the costs....different story all together.
I'm really, really surprised that this hasn't been challenged at all. I came across that Carterfone decision several years ago (most likely by chance) and immediately thought of the CDMA carriers here. But, I rock GSM, so it doesn't matter too much to me
T-Mobile offers phones without data plans
I recently purchased a Samsung Vibrant on craigslist walked into a T-Mobile store bought a sim card, signed up for a month to month plan for $29.00 and have a smart phone with out paying for data or texting. I wish the other carriers were decent enough to allow this. What scares me most about the T-mobile and Att Merger talk is this consumer friendly company may be shut down.
It's interesting because the federal statutes (i.e., passed by Congress) are vague enough for wiggle room, but the FCC regulations don't seem to be. Following the Chevron decision, courts would be very likely to give the FCC reading of the federal statute deference---i.e., you'd likely lose the case and spend 10 years in jail (IF prosecution ever happened, which for the private in-home purposes of cloning I've been discussing is IMHO a big IF).
panamaniac said:
It's interesting because the federal statutes (i.e., passed by Congress) are vague enough for wiggle room, but the FCC regulations don't seem to be. Following the Chevron decision, courts would be very likely to give the FCC reading of the federal statute deference---i.e., you'd likely lose the case and spend 10 years in jail (IF prosecution ever happened, which for the private in-home purposes of cloning I've been discussing is IMHO a big IF).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Chevron implements a two-step analysis. Neither, in this scenario, would allow for deference to the FCC on the SOLE issue of a CDMA carrier refusing to activate a CDMA device not purchased from said carrier. Would deference be given to changing or cloning ESNs? Quite possibly, but if the case even remotely touched on the aforementioned "ban", the court would address that matter in favor of the consumer.
For the last time, we're talking about
SWAPPING
Although I enjoyed the data speed of T-Mobile, I am glad I am no longer paying a charge to them. This business with their future phones is a sign of how un-serious they take their consumer business. And because of that, they do deserve the lack of business their decisions will cause.
Not producing phones that will fully function of AT&T's 3G/4G service is just pure willy-nilly ignorant and T-Mobile needs to feel the heat of their ignorance. The so-called "super phone" coming to T-Mobile, the HTC Sensation, will be a no-seller because of how T-Mobile chooses to conduct their business.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/27/t-mobile-g2x-lacks-quadband-hspa-shatters-dreams/
Interesting. i wonder what they do when and if the merger goes through, what then ? do they run to platforms and try to merge over 2 years ? That will totally toast them in business and will lower market share........... Yeah..... What is their plan ?
Yea, I'm thinking of switching back to AT&T as well. Will get a phone that works as long as I need it to, and much better network coverage. Data speeds aren't that big a deal to me, as long as it's around 2mbps download 1mbps up I'm more than content...
And I can still get a 4GB data plan with an iPhone if I go back...
Not too concerned here. 2 of my 3 t-mobile devices fully support at&t's 3g and 4g bands. Just my hd2 will need to be replaced, and that's years away. Not worried.
edit: And phones are planned many months if not a year (or more) in advance. The at&t - t-mobile merger most likely wasn't even in the outlook when they made that phone in the first place.
MartyLK said:
Not producing phones that will fully function of AT&T's 3G/4G service is just pure willy-nilly ignorant...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, that's assuming that the merger goes through.
And even if it does, it's not T-Mobile themselves who produce the phones, they can only buy what the manufacturers are selling.
Plus you seem to be confusing ignorance with short-sightedness.
MOD EDIT :Keep cool, no need to be rude.
TheMan42 said:
The only ignorance here is your post.
Sent from my G2 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
Why would you invest extra money into adding a whole new radio into a handset if there is no garuntee that the merger will go through? The next complaint/answer would be "tmo's handsets are sooo needlesly expensive". Probably because someone thought it was a good idea to put unecassary hardware in a phone you probably wont even remember when (if?) the merger goes through.
I get calls like this all the time, if the service doesnt work for you i completely understand- Please find another service because getting the same whiney call day in and day out costs t mobile that much more money keeping an unhappy customer.
Let me be clear id rather handle 10000 calls about our coverage and service then silly reasons like this, you dont need to justify your reason to leave a carrier.. just leave.
TheMan42 said:
MOD EDIT :Keep cool, no need to be rude.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To be honest, that came off a little strong, but I still feel it was justified. The Original post should be re-read, then see what was more flame-bait. My statement was the truth, it was "ignorant". Ignorance isn't an insult, its simply stating the the post has no merit into what T-Mobile is doing with their products.
T-Mobile still remains a competitor to AT&T, why would they start to have manufacturers incorporate further frequencies in their devices that support the competitors products? I don't see AT&T doing that with their products, nor Verizon or Sprint.
Interesting. And maybe of interest to me. Someone from t mobile has been hard on my heels to switch from sprint to t mobile. She countered every advantage i thought sprint had: pricewise, 4g coverage etc. If I did not switch yet, cause I am a creature of habits and stick to sprint cause: it is what I started with.
mikzfan
TheMan42 said:
To be honest, that came off a little strong, but I still feel it was justified. The Original post should be re-read, then see what was more flame-bait. My statement was the truth, it was "ignorant". Ignorance isn't an insult, its simply stating the the post has no merit into what T-Mobile is doing with their products.
T-Mobile still remains a competitor to AT&T, why would they start to have manufacturers incorporate further frequencies in their devices that support the competitors products? I don't see AT&T doing that with their products, nor Verizon or Sprint.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually Sprint and Verizon both work on the same 2 frequencies. We're allowed to roam on Verizon as much as we want, included in the plan (there's no hard limit, but don't overuse it), and Verizon customers get to roam on Sprint.
AT&T will become the only GSM phone provider in california when this takes place.
Not surprise one bit. T-MobileUS is notorious for false advertising or even intended false advertising on a bunch of their handsets. How can you trust a company who intentionally commercialized the whole "4G" craze by simply stating that actual 4G infrastructure wasn't worth it and HSPA+ was more than just enough? Good thing they got bought out.
KevGer said:
Hey there everyone if you would like to save money off a new contract with T-Mobile, Att, Sprint, or Verizon email me at [email protected]
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please stop spamming
Sent from my Droid Bionic using XDA Premium App
att is gay
they got bought out by another whack provider though
T-Mobile is just as crap here in The Netherlands aswell, I'm glad I have Vodafone!
been loving verizon since i switched from t mobile
Do you guys think AT&T and Tmobile Merger will get approved by the Senate?
F***!!!!!! ATT
I will be moving to Sprint if this does go through... I left ATT for a reason...
I will be gone the day my grandfathered plan expires. I refuse to pay $100 more a month for less services. Why would any sane person do that?
I guess it will be back to sprint....
If it goes through im going back to sprint or boost, I refuse to pay att for any media services
Didn't ATT announce that existing T-Mobile customers will be able to keep their existing plans for as long as they want and still benefit from ATT's network and phone selection?
Pretty sure I read that this is a big point they will be making in front of the Senate.
Unless you want to upgrade your phone ever.
Sent from my LG-P999 using XDA App
Yeah what he said... if the merger means there will still be 2 companies, I'm down. But when has that ever happened. I been with tmo before they were tmo
... remember voicestream ? Once att gobles up tmo say buh by to decent customer service and decent rates... if I can't keep my plan indefinitely ... ill be heading to Verizon. **** sprint.
"If Satan lived in heaven he'd be me.... "
Senate has nothing to say - FTC and Justice department. And even if they disapprove, Courts could can overturn ruling - they have done so with other anti-competitive mergers.
Hate ATT customer service!!! Do not want the merger to take place any time soon or ever! 100% against it!!!!
I will leave if it gets approved.
I liked AT&T. I left AT&T because even with full bars at my house, you can't make a call. Even if you can, the call would be dropped before you can finish it.
My GF has AT&T and her phone does the same thing. My neighbors have AT&T and they do they same thing. Even friends on AT&T that visit my house say the same thing.
The sad part is that it isn't just at my house, it's everywhere. Tmobile may not have great service everywhere, but it works where it should and I hardly get disconnected.
I don't mind AT&T because I travel across the US and I found that AT&T pretty much covers me better then Tmobile and they have pretty decent 3G coverage even between cities where Tmobile is GPRS only (not even EDGE).
My feelings toward the merger can go 2 ways:
First, I would not mind AT&T so much IF/WHEN they merge, they allow AT&T customers to use the great Tmobile signal found at my house... or keep the companies separate but allow access to all the GSM signals. Basically the best of both worlds. Like having access to both Tmobile and AT&T networks.
Second, they bring over the Even More Plus plans where you can have your own device and have a lower monthly bill, which makes sense. A part of the monthly bill pays for the big discounts you get off the phones you buy them on contract. If you don't buy their equipment, why would anyone be forced to pay for a discount they never got? I really like the EMP plans and I think they are awesome.
Lastly, they don't rape my bill. $30 a month for internet is INSANE!!!! Plus don't advertise $79 a month plans* (*requires a $30 data plan). WTF is that? It a plan REQUIRES something, then it should all be included in the price. The math should be $109 a month, which is too damn expensive.
I'm actually really happy with $59 1000 minutes unlimited everything else (less a 5gb cap).
That is reasonable and a good deal.
Will switch to VZW if merger happened.
mightywonton said:
Do you guys think AT&T and Tmobile Merger will get approved by the Senate?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Senate doesn't approve or disapprove the sale. The FCC and the DOJ have the power in this. One of the closing off the cuff comments from one of the Senators was that he figured the sale would be approved with stipulations as has been speculated all along. We are not many years from a two carrier system...Sprint will never survive against the two behemoths.
I just read a cent article saying its gonna take up to 12 months to evaluate the deal and most of the senate is against it so I doubt it will be approved. If it gets approved that means that there will only be one GSM carrier in the US and consumers will not have a choice but to go with ATT if they want GSM so I dont see how the FCC will approve that.
maciek82 said:
Didn't ATT announce that existing T-Mobile customers will be able to keep their existing plans for as long as they want and still benefit from ATT's network and phone selection?
Pretty sure I read that this is a big point they will be making in front of the Senate.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They are playing nice right now because they are trying to get the deal approved. Do you think that the deal would get approved if ATT was out right saying they were going raise the rates on 50 million ppl? Probably not.
In turn if you own a company and you had 50 million ppl you could raise the rates up 20+ dollars why wouldn't you? Its all about the $$$$$$$$
johnnyp500 said:
I just read a cent article saying its gonna take up to 12 months to evaluate the deal and most of the senate is against it so I doubt it will be approved. If it gets approved that means that there will only be one GSM carrier in the US and consumers will not have a choice but to go with ATT if they want GSM so I dont see how the FCC will approve that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Again, the Senate doesn't matter in the big scheme of things. And the same folks that will decide this sale approved the XM-Sirius merger which resulted in ONE satelite radio provider.
The vast majority of folks could care less if they have GSM or CDMA or TDMA or ABCD or whatever...they want good signal with cheap prices.
I hate to see it and say it, and it will probably take a while, but its going to get approved. AT&T will probably have to make some concessions, but in the end it will go through.
bluemoon737 said:
Again, the Senate doesn't matter in the big scheme of things. And the same folks that will decide this sale approved the XM-Sirius merger which resulted in ONE satelite radio provider.
The vast majority of folks could care less if they have GSM or CDMA or TDMA or ABCD or whatever...they want good signal with cheap prices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
cent = cnet
Im sorry but I disagree with you. Those who travel internationally and use different sim cards in different countries want a global phone and want to choose a gsm network. There are many people like that and it is only fair that they have a choice between at least 2 carriers
jcbofkc said:
I will be gone the day my grandfathered plan expires. I refuse to pay $100 more a month for less services. Why would any sane person do that?
I guess it will be back to sprint....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
Sent from my LG-P999 using XDA Premium App
just got the breaking news from CNN...
so I guess Tmous willl be Tmous.
makes me happy since I like Tmous as it is and did not want to be with AT&T.
I was kind of looking forward to the synergies that would have gone into effect (better service or whatever), and thought that they could finally start competing with Verizon in terms of carrier ranking. It's a pity their asset sales deal went cold.
i read something on this a couple months ago, wasnt from CNN though. i was extremly happy though!!! i hate att, their packaging sucks, customer supper, phones are not as good looking either lol. and i hate their plans
stratax said:
i read something on this a couple months ago, wasnt from CNN though. i was extremly happy though!!! i hate att, their packaging sucks, customer supper, phones are not as good looking either lol. and i hate their plans
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what are you talking about do you follow new lol if it wasnt for tmob att would never have 50$ unlimited all
hell i unlocked my phone if tmob dont get it together will just drop them and go att
http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-ph...ans/pyg-cell-phone-plans.jsp?_requestid=79200
I knew that would happen..
stratax said:
i read something on this a couple months ago, wasnt from CNN though. i was extremly happy though!!! i hate att, their packaging sucks, customer supper, phones are not as good looking either lol. and i hate their plans
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The part you heard was the Justice Department suing to stop the merger. More recently, the FCC also threatened to block the merger (back around Thanksgiving), noting that the deal would decrease competition in 99 out of 100 markets the FCC evaluated (the 1 remaining was Omaha, where T-mobile doesn't officially have a market presence, though oddly enough they do have a few cell towers there and you can get coverage.)
All those previous news articles, though, didn't mean the merger was off; it just meant that, for the first time in over a decade regulators actually decided to not just roll over and let a monopoly have its way. This is different; this is AT&T officially calling off the merger and agreeing to pay T-mobile the breakup fee.
This is great news for US cellular customers, as we still have our low-cost, more-open-than-anyone-else-in-the-US national competitor around, and with a nice cash windfall to boot. It's a little bittersweet, though, because Verizon just snuck in and bought out the last of the readily-available wireless spectrum from the cable companies, meaning that, should that buyout be approved, T-mobile no longer has a really good path to rolling out an LTE network.
So, in the short term it's an awesome deal for T-mobile and for US customers. In the long run it really depends on T-mobile pulling an LTE network out of its hat, and that's going to be hard to do now that the nearly all of the good wireless spectrum licenses are gobbled up by the Big Three.
Hope Google makes a move for T-MO
Sent from my Sensation using xda premium
Five0nIt said:
Hope Google makes a move for T-MO
Sent from my Sensation using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They can't anymore; they own Motorola now, and the FCC has been very clear that carriers can't manufacture phones. And for good reason: if they hadn't imposed that rule in the 70s we'd still have a grand total of three wired handsets on the market (the ones offered by AT&T) and no cell phones, modems, fax machines, etc. If the FCC didn't approve AT&T&T-mobile, there's no way they'd approve Google&Motorola&T-mobile.
It's a shame, too. It seems obvious that Google was looking to buy a US wireless carrier, given their rush to buy up dark fiber and the small pilot project offering 1 Gbps internet to Kansas City. The obvious choice would be the relatively small carrier that was open enough to innovation to host the very first Android phone. Unfortunately they needed a patent portfolio to defend Android against Apple and Microsoft's lawsuit barrage, and Motorola basically held itself hostage, forcing Google to buy the whole company, rather than just the patents it wanted.
Five0nIt said:
Hope Google makes a move for T-MO
Sent from my Sensation using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 that would be sweet and it's great to see the users win this no-merge!
TheEyes said:
They can't anymore; they own Motorola now, and the FCC has been very clear that carriers can't manufacture phones. And for good reason: if they hadn't imposed that rule in the 70s we'd still have a grand total of three wired handsets on the market (the ones offered by AT&T) and no cell phones, modems, fax machines, etc. If the FCC didn't approve AT&T&T-mobile, there's no way they'd approve Google&Motorola&T-mobile.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your right, I forgot they bought moto
Sent from my Sensation using xda premium
TheEyes said:
They can't anymore; they own Motorola now, and the FCC has been very clear that carriers can't manufacture phones. And for good reason: if they hadn't imposed that rule in the 70s we'd still have a grand total of three wired handsets on the market (the ones offered by AT&T) and no cell phones, modems, fax machines, etc. If the FCC didn't approve AT&T&T-mobile, there's no way they'd approve Google&Motorola&T-mobile.
It's a shame, too. It seems obvious that Google was looking to buy a US wireless carrier, given their rush to buy up dark fiber and the small pilot project offering 1 Gbps internet to Kansas City. The obvious choice would be the relatively small carrier that was open enough to innovation to host the very first Android phone. Unfortunately they needed a patent portfolio to defend Android against Apple and Microsoft's lawsuit barrage, and Motorola basically held itself hostage, forcing Google to buy the whole company, rather than just the patents it wanted.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
they can in a couple years..
I was soooo happy when I heard this today! I f*ckin hate At&t. I have a friend that works for At&t and he even hates their cell service and its free for him! They are overpriced and I'm sure we would have gotten dicked as tmobile customers if the buyout would have went through.
big fancy said:
I was soooo happy when I heard this today! I f*ckin hate At&t. I have a friend that works for At&t and he even hates their cell service and its free for him! They are overpriced and I'm sure we would have gotten dicked as tmobile customers if the buyout would have went through.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For sure, just ask any former Cingular wireless customers.
craven667 said:
what are you talking about do you follow new lol if it wasnt for tmob att would never have 50$ unlimited all
hell i unlocked my phone if tmob dont get it together will just drop them and go att
http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-ph...ans/pyg-cell-phone-plans.jsp?_requestid=79200
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well i say that because i pay $15 a month for texting, i dont think you can do that with att. all my friends with att are paying a **** ton, all my friends with tmo (not much lol) arent really even with data
nrvnqsrxk said:
I was kind of looking forward to the synergies that would have gone into effect (better service or whatever), and thought that they could finally start competing with Verizon in terms of carrier ranking. It's a pity their asset sales deal went cold.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why do you think that would have made things better? Just curious, but IMO ATT would not have kept Tmo the same, if nothing else I'm sure they would have raised the rates on everything.
kingston73 said:
Why do you think that would have made things better? Just curious, but IMO ATT would not have kept Tmo the same, if nothing else I'm sure they would have raised the rates on everything.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think price hikes would occur if your plan was grandfathered. And we would benefit from additional UTMS service coverage. It's a good thing that AT&T is required to pay TMOUS 3 Billion as breakup fee, as well as increased service in 20 different areas.
7 Year UMTS Deal & 3B Breakup Fee by AT&T
Is a retard?
Not talking about their choices with their mobile network, I'm actually talking about their personality. Can it be true?
It's a CDMA thing...no smart person would limit themselves like that...
lowandbehold said:
It's a CDMA thing...no smart person would limit themselves like that...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Some of us like to have good service in the US.
--
Sent from my Droid Bionic.
TheBiles said:
Some of us like to have good service in the US.
--
Sent from my Droid Bionic.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
CDMA and a Motorola? That damn near makes your post irrelevant.
lowandbehold said:
CDMA and a Motorola? That damn near makes your post irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Bionic was the best phone available when I switched to Verizon (Nexus is coming after the holidays), and GSM is a complete joke in the US. I prefer to actually have data when I leave a major city.
--
Sent from my Droid Bionic.
Customer Service not Cell Service
I live in the northern most reaches of metro Atlanta, with Sprint, and most people either have AT&T or Verizon. Honestly, they both have better coverage away from the city. The problem is how badly local people demean their cellular provider. If it isn't extra fees or a broken phone they can't trade in then it's the wonderful customer no-service.
I don't mean to imply Sprint is blameless and holy but service from anyone is never going to be perfect - for a few years I didn't have any service across northern Alabama but that serves me right for even being there. The Sprint customer service has always helped me. From free minutes, that I have had for 6 years, to a new free phone and a free battery. Not to mention they don't cut off my service when I'm a day or two late with the payment.
And if the day comes that Sprint starts to take a sh** on me, I'll move down the road to someone else.
So to answer your question, it's either you or those around you but certainly not a universal trait. From my perspective, AT&T people are the 'retards' due to their continued tolerance of sub-standard data service just so they can own the iphone.