T-Mobile disputes Verizon's spectrum deal with cable providers
1. squallz506 posted on 22 Feb 2012, 12:47 7 3
i want t-mobile to stop verizon's AWS acquisition; just so t-mobile can acquire it themselves and roll out the HSPA+ Multiflow. xD.
go go purple power ranger!
3. squallz506 posted on 22 Feb 2012, 12:57 8 2
magenta power ranger didnt sound right.
i seriously considered it but sided with purple.
18. parkwaydr posted on 22 Feb 2012, 20:32 1 0
It seems that atleast two people here don't have a sense of humor
22. squallz506 posted on 22 Feb 2012, 21:11 0 0
my guess is maier9900, taco50, I believer, maybe gallitoking. I know at least maier has been thumb downing almost everything I post.
4. Jphones posted on 22 Feb 2012, 13:00 2 3
Yeah let tmobile catch up dam Verizon you already have a better technology. Let tmobile just cover more area.
5. nb2six posted on 22 Feb 2012, 13:42 1 8
Yea lets' allow a carrier with terrible customer service get more coverage so more people will subscribe and add additional complaints.
6. Giggity posted on 22 Feb 2012, 13:52 3 1
I'm sure when it comes down to the "Terrible Customer Service" department, no one can do better than AT&T.
8. squallz506 posted on 22 Feb 2012, 13:58 2 1
yeah at&t is worst two years in a row now. and the worst among all iphone users last year.
12. nb2six posted on 22 Feb 2012, 17:53 0 0
I will agree with you both there. At&T definitely takes the cake at being the worst. I just get a bunch of feedback from my t-mobile customers about how much they dred calling CS to get a problem resolved when they are over in another continent and dont really care.
7. squallz506 posted on 22 Feb 2012, 13:57 4 0
t-mobile is still miles ahead of big blue in customer satisfaction. and t-mobile's monthly4g users (including me) are the most satisfied prepaid customers. but dont take my word for it read consumerreports.org's annual survey here:http://www.consumerreports.org
19. parkwaydr posted on 22 Feb 2012, 20:39 0 0
I had tmo for two years and never once had a problem with cs, but I did have a problem with not getting signal in my own house, although I've been told that thier signal has gotten a lot better since then
10. TMobileRep_52_SwaaaG posted on 22 Feb 2012, 16:37 3 0
good job at givin absolutely no details and leaving a general ignorant statement ap1989
11. medicci37 posted on 22 Feb 2012, 17:10 1 1
t-Mo does suck. I could give hundreds of reasons. But not worth my time. Sounds like someone is just mad they can't compete with Big Red (:-o
14. thephoneguy92 posted on 22 Feb 2012, 18:29 1 0
I would actually like to hear the hundreds of reasons why T-Mobile sucks...They may not have the absolute best service, but for 60 bucks a month and a solid lineup of phones + fast data speeds, I wouldn't mind it over my $100 Verizon plan with 2 GB of data and 400 minutes...
16. cellphonator posted on 22 Feb 2012, 20:25 1 0
Bla bla bla LOL. A hundred of reason hahaha.
Do you know why they're called the Big Red? Because that's the color of your bank account after you pay their phone bill. OVERPRICED.
13. Mr.Mr.Upgrade posted on 22 Feb 2012, 18:14 0 2
Whose afraid of the big bad red lol..... stop hating sucks mobile.....i got friends who got your service only because its cheap....... is a skate board better then a car??? H*ll no.... ...
26. mistahderek posted on 23 Feb 2012, 15:31 0 0
thats a dumb way of putting it, stateboard to a car???? realy? thats like saying a usb 2g aircard compared to a google nexus 0_o hello! verizon compared to t mobile is like comparing a benz s550 to a hyundai sonata
15. Jphones posted on 22 Feb 2012, 19:59 1 1
Ha yall tmobile haters are either Apple fan boys or dumb to the fact Verizon and AT&T are trying to become not just the leading 2 carriers they're tryin to be the only 2. They're working on owning majority of the spectrum so the other smaller carriers service will be limited. Wake up before we all have limited data plans that cost $140
20. anonimust posted on 22 Feb 2012, 20:42 1 1
While T-mobile was busy trying to be gobbled up by at&t, which would have instantly put them in the position of being part of #1 carrier and #1 spectrum holdings, now all of a sudden it is wrong that Verizon was smart and went looking to buy spectrum and found a seller?
Why didn't T-mobile tell at&t: "We're sorry at&t but we cannot sellout to you because then you would control too much spectrum, have too many subscribers, and kill off a competitor."
For all you stupid T-mobile supporters you don't realize T-mobile is not interested in protecting you the consumer. They are no different than Verizon, at&t, or any other corporation for that matter in that they will pursue what fits their own interests, even if it means being hypocritical.
Saying Verizon can't buy any more spectrum because they have too much already is like telling Donald Trump he can't buy anymore real estate because he has too much already. If Verizon's deal should be blocked just because you people think it should be given on the cheap to a smaller competitor, than before Donald Trump buys he next piece of real estate it should be blocked until the government gives me a piece of property on the cheap.
21. Jphones posted on 22 Feb 2012, 21:01 2 0
Um first I for sure am not dumb. An tmobile was offered a much higher price than their company was worth so it would have been dumb to not accept the AT&T offer. An as for Verizon buying the spectrum nobody said that the smaller carriers had to get it for cheaper. An as for your Donald trump analogy which was bad by the way its completely different Mr.Comeover isn't the biggest real estate buyer in the nation but if he was the DOJ would block something that would make it nearly impossible for smaller buyers to increase there inventory of property. So please do your homework before you go on a essay rant about things you have no idea about.
23. anonimust posted on 22 Feb 2012, 22:30 1 1
And Verizon offered SpectrumCo more money than what their spectrum was worth. So how is that any different than the T-Mobile deal?
Does T-Mobile want to offer SpectrumCo more money for those spectrum licenses? I don't hear them saying they are ready and willing to pay more money than Verizon for those licenses.
Also, if you don't think the smaller carriers should get it for cheaper, then there should be no problem with them derailing the deal by offering SpectrumCo more money for those licenses. Afterall Wachovia bank originally had a deal to sell to Citibank for 2 billion, but Wells Fargo came in and debunked that deal with an offer of $16 billion. The smaller carriers could do the same thing. Oh wait except your argument is that the smaller carriers can't. Why? Because they don't have the money. So if no one else can come up with a better offer than Verizon's I suppose you feel that nobody is entitled to purchase it and SpectrumCo should just sit on that spectrum and nobody gets to use it. If not, then the only option is to let the smaller carrier's purchase it cheaper if they cannot beat out Verizon's offer.
Also I don't know who the biggest real estate mogul is, and it was an analogy that most people could understand, the point being that the market in this country doesn't work on the premise that if you can't buy it than nobody can.
Verizon's purchase does nothing to hurt the smaller buyers because apparently the smaller buyers were not interested or if they were interested, they could not top Verizon's offer.
So answer me this, if the smaller buyer's were not interested, and Verizon was, and SpectrumCo wanted to sell, than why should it be blocked if Verizon can use it to offer better service to its subscribers?
If the smaller buyer's were interested, but could not pay as much as Verizon, why should SpectrumCo be forced to sell it for less? As you yourself said T-mobile "would have been dumb to not accept the AT&T offer", then so too SpectrumCo would have been dumb not to accept Verizon's offer.
Remember in this country we live by the golden rule:
"He who has the gold, rules"
Verizon has the money, Verizon rules. In fact that's their slogan "rule the air". They do that by buying the airwaves.
The fact of the matter is, people who are against this deal are just jealous of Verizon's dominant market position, and cry out in the name of "equality and fairness and competition, etc" but the fact of the matter is if you were in Verizon's shoes you would be doing the exact same thing and you wouldn't give a damn about T-mobile.
24. squallz506 posted on 22 Feb 2012, 23:49 1 0
i am a tmobile customer, it is no suprise that i want whats best for my carrier. i dont care at all what verizon does so long as it doesnt affect my monthly4g.
and it isnt an issue of #1 vs #4, it is an anti-trust, anti-competitive issue. america doesnt have a truly laissez-faire economy. trusts and anticompetitive behavior are not allowed here.
but i dont care what verizon does, i just would like to see my speed increase and my plan stay the same price. dont you want the same thing? or would you prefer waiting in a breadline for whatever gruel the telco monopoly decides to give you at any price they name?
i dont hate on verizon, i hate on anti-competitive behavior.
i think t-mobile has a good case. but lets sit back and let the good ol' DOJ decide.
27. anonimust posted on 23 Feb 2012, 22:17 1 0
How is is anti-competitive behavior on Verizon's part?
They need more spectrum. They found a seller.
There is no other argument.
They did not step over any other carriers to make that purchase and they did not try to acquire more spectrum by eliminating a competitor.
I don't hear any of the other companies coming to the table stating they want to buy the spectrum for the same or more than what Verizon is offering.
SpectrumCo clearly stated they were not going to use the spectrum because they found it too difficult to build a cellphone network from scratch.
So please explain to me how it is anti-competitive on Verizon's part to buy something that they need to be able to give their customers better service? Verizon at least has a proven track record of putting their spectrum to use and not squatting on it.
Verizon's purchase does not eliminate a competitor as SpectrumCo does not currently operate or offer cellphone service. I have not heard of any other companies making an offer for the spectrum. So how exactly is Verizon engaging in anticompetitive behavior.
Your only argument is "If I can't have it, then nobody else can either". Thus, you claim if its not going to T-mobile, Verizon can't have it either. How in any way does Verizon's purchase cause your speed offered by your carrier to decrease and how does it increase the price you have to pay your carrier?
So how does Verizon's purchase hurt T-mobile in any way when they are not taking anything away from T-mobile?
25. Jphones posted on 23 Feb 2012, 00:23 2 1
We don't want to live by who has the most money has the power you capitalistic moron. It's just that way now but we're also fighting the ignorance you just said. We as consumers are tired of the big guy steppin on the little guy and eliminating them so they can make a bigger profit. Have to have diversity to make it a somewhat even playin field. Hopefully we all don't become as ignorant or as capitalistic as you.
28. anonimust posted on 23 Feb 2012, 22:56 1 0
Please provide evidence that Verizon stepped on "the little guy" to make this purchase.
In fact, it was "the little guy" aka SpectrumCo, that is making out like a bandit because they are getting $1billion more for the spectrum than they paid for. Seems to me like "the little guy" is not being trampled on at all.
Verizon is not eliminating a competitor, and they are taking nothing away from other competitors.
You do realize the company you support is the biggest example of capitalistic as it willingly engaged into a deal that was eventually deemed anticompetitive for its own benefit.
Do you actually think if T-mobile is not offered another buyout that they wouldn't go for it?
T-mobile is classic example of pot calling the kettle black.
Also, I am by no means capitalistic. I am not calling you a communist or socialist just because you promote the idea of "equality for all/ big guy not stepping on little guy"
I am simply realistic. And Verizon did not step on T-mobile in order to make this purchase. Please cite me one piece of evidence that Verizon stepped on T-mobile's toes in any way in making this deal. If T-mobile wanted to, they could have tried this deal with SpectrumCo instead of whoring themselves to at&t. Just because T-mobile's service is not on the same level as Verizon doesn't mean Verizon should be held back.
If my kid and your kid were in the same class, my kid who is an A+ student should not be held back or have his educational opportunities stifled because your kid is an F student who is getting left back.
Verizon= A student
T-mobile = F student
T-mobile getting left behind is T-mobile's fault and has absolutely nothing to do with Verizon.
Unless the government divides spectrum, which is a finite resource, evenly amongst all carriers, at the same price, the reality is that YES, the company with the most money will dominate. If consumers don't like it, then they need to stop paying for Verizon's premium services and go to T-mobile, thus causing Verizon to lose value. Of course if that were to happen all you achieve is reversing the roles where T-mobile rates will become Verizon rates, and Verizon rates will become T-mobile rates.
If T-mobile wants the spectrum, let them buy it. But to say Verizon can't have it just because is a stupid argument.