• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

At&T to purchase T-Mobile

colnago said:
I also have rollover minutes, and that's great that you don't use yours, but I do. It only takes an outage and a 5 hour conference call to burn through a monthly allotment in a day. "Rollover" feature still does not justify charging plan minutes for a forwarded call. As for "unlimited" I do not see how unlimited "mobile-to-mobile" is the same as unlimited "mobile-to-any".

And what about those international rates? I definitely don't see an international option that offers "free calling" (i.e. no per minute fees) to international land lines with "my" AT&T plan. ;)
Click to expand...

Like the man said AT&T has unlimited mobile to ANY mobile now and rollover, so not only do you get the rollover you can also call ANY mobile number on ANY provider for free UNLIMITED
 
AndreaCristiano said:
Like the man said AT&T has unlimited mobile to ANY mobile now and rollover, so not only do you get the rollover you can also call ANY mobile number on ANY provider for free UNLIMITED
Click to expand...

That's great, and I have that as part of my AT&T plan, but that still does not give me:

1. Unlimited calling to land lines
2. Unlimited calling internationally


...bottom line is, I get more calling for less money with T-Mo. What is the point that you are trying to make?
 
dylo22 said:
The FCC still have to approve all this. I don't think it's going to a cake walk for att. GSM monopoly doesn't sound too economy friendly.
Click to expand...


Would be a shame if for some reason, the current T-Mo customers have to "start a new contract", under new terms (e.g. the EMP clients, or people coming to the end of 2-year term), and are forced into one of AT&T's capped data plans. I could see this happening if AT&T follows suit with Sprint in charging additional fees/different plan, for the "new 4G LTE" access.
 
colnago said:
That's great, and I have that as part of my AT&T plan, but that still does not give me:

1. Unlimited calling to land lines
2. Unlimited calling internationally


...bottom line is, I get more calling for less money with T-Mo. What is the point that you are trying to make?
Click to expand...


No one gives you unlimited international so what's your point. Also with all those minutes and roller I don't think your calling 6000 land line min a month
 
AndreaCristiano said:
No one gives you unlimited international so what's your point. Also with all those minutes and roller I don't think your calling 6000 land line min a month
Click to expand...

I respect that you have an opposing position, but as a suggestion, when making a point, try not to assume you know a person's situation, and using that assumption as basis for your argument. Although I am still genuinely curious as to how you equate "unlimited mobile-to-mobile" as being on par with "unlimited mobile-to-mobile-AND-land line", given that the unlimited mobile-to-mobile is more expensive.

However regarding international calling, T-Mo has an international plan, for an additional$10/mo., which allows you to use plan minutes, to call internationally. If you have an unlimited minute plan, then you get unlimited calling internationally. There is no additional "$ per minute charge", as with AT&T's monthly "discounted" international calling plan. The $10/mo additional added to my T-Mo plan is still less than my AT&T plan (i.e. $49/mo for unlimited "everywhere US", plus $10/mo for international calling is $59/mo. total for unlimited calling US and international land line).

When did I ever state that I have 6000 rollover minutes? I have a shared 700 minute plan with AT&T. When a cell phone is used for work and personal use, its very easy "for me" to reach or exceed limits.

But again, regardless of my usage, "rollover" does not equal "unlimited", especially when that rollover plan costs more than an unlimited plan...and when the rollover minutes expire.

Again, bottom line, AT&T is more expensive (and more restrictive in some cases) than T-Mo.
 
colnago said:
I respect that you have an opposing position, but as a suggestion, when making a point, try not to assume you know a person's situation, and using that assumption as basis for your argument. Although I am still genuinely curious as to how you equate "unlimited mobile-to-mobile" as being on par with "unlimited mobile-to-mobile-AND-land line", given that the unlimited mobile-to-mobile is more expensive.

However regarding international calling, T-Mo has an international plan, for an additional$10/mo., which allows you to use plan minutes, to call internationally. If you have an unlimited minute plan, then you get unlimited calling internationally. There is no additional "$ per minute charge", as with AT&T's monthly "discounted" international calling plan. The $10/mo additional added to my T-Mo plan is still less than my AT&T plan (i.e. $49/mo for unlimited "everywhere US", plus $10/mo for international calling is $59/mo. total for unlimited calling US and international land line).

When did I ever state that I have 6000 rollover minutes? I have a shared 700 minute plan with AT&T. When a cell phone is used for work and personal use, its very easy "for me" to reach or exceed limits.

But again, regardless of my usage, "rollover" does not equal "unlimited", especially when that rollover plan costs more than an unlimited plan...and when the rollover minutes expire.

Again, bottom line, AT&T is more expensive (and more restrictive in some cases) than T-Mo.
Click to expand...


That's all well and good. I will give you an example. Our plan has like 5000 rollover min and 1500 a month with unlimited text plus unlimited any mobile.. The anymobile is included with the unlimited family text so its not an extra fee. So between the 5000 rollover and 1500 monthly we won't use and neither will the average person use those on landlines. On the international front I call Italy all the time but I do not use my cell as it cost to much compared to landines
 
AndreaCristiano said:
That's all well and good. I will give you an example. Our plan has like 5000 rollover min and 1500 a month with unlimited text plus unlimited any mobile.. The anymobile is included with the unlimited family text so its not an extra fee. So between the 5000 rollover and 1500 monthly we won't use and neither will the average person use those on landlines. On the international front I call Italy all the time but I do not use my cell as it cost to much compared to landines
Click to expand...

Again, just because "you" do not use your rollover minutes, does not make "AT&T's rollover plan" less expensive than "T-Mobile's unlimited". Not everyone has 5000 rollover minutes, and even if they do, they are paying more than they would for it on T-Mo.

Again, AT&T does not offer unlimited calling to land lines, as T-Mobile does.

T-Mobile's $10/mo international plan is arguably the least expensive option, cellular, VoIP, or POTS, to call internationally. Again, T-Mo wins out.

Again, the point is that for every feature or plan, T-Mo is "less expensive"...unless you have evidence otherwise? If not, enjoy your day.

;)

p.s. - AT&T should not be charging minutes for every minute that a call is forward...highway robbery IMO.
 
colnago said:
Again, just because "you" do not use your rollover minutes, does not make "AT&T's rollover plan" less expensive than "T-Mobile's unlimited". Not everyone has 5000 rollover minutes, and even if they do, they are paying more than they would for it on T-Mo.

Again, AT&T does not offer unlimited calling to land lines, as T-Mobile does.

T-Mobile's $10/mo international plan is arguably the least expensive option, cellular, VoIP, or POTS, to call internationally. Again, T-Mo wins out.

Again, the point is that for every feature or plan, T-Mo is "less expensive"...unless you have evidence otherwise? If not, enjoy your day.

;)

p.s. - AT&T should not be charging minutes for every minute that a call is forward...highway robbery IMO.
Click to expand...


Ps just for interest. My uncle ( who works for ATT corporate ) just told me that pricing is likely to go down after the buyout. Supposedly he's telling me they are considering keeping some tmobile plans etc integrating them into ATT plans
 
AndreaCristiano said:
Ps just for interest. My uncle ( who works for ATT corporate ) just told me that pricing is likely to go down after the buyout. Supposedly he's telling me they are considering keeping some tmobile plans etc integrating them into ATT plans
Click to expand...


Roger that...would be nice to see. However somebody is going to have to pay for all those CRS-3 backbone routers AT&T has been installing, along with the LTE infrastructure. I'd be surprised to see cheaper plans right after a buyout.

Like I said, I'll be sure to lock in my $10 "web2go" before the change-over.
 
colnago said:
Roger that...would be nice to see. However somebody is going to have to pay for all those CRS-3 backbone routers AT&T has been installing, along with the LTE infrastructure. I'd be surprised to see cheaper plans right after a buyout.

Like I said, I'll be sure to lock in my $10 "web2go" before the change-over.
Click to expand...


Well they are saying that this purchase by year three will be making them money. If they were doing this rollout without the purchase it would actually cost them 8 billion more per year and take 5 more years. So not only does this switch it on faster it does it in a quarter of the price so there is opportunity to lower prices.
 
AndreaCristiano said:
Ps just for interest. My uncle ( who works for ATT corporate ) just told me that pricing is likely to go down after the buyout. Supposedly he's telling me they are considering keeping some tmobile plans etc integrating them into ATT plans
Click to expand...
Ah your uncle works there? This all makes sense now.
 
AndreaCristiano said:
Well they are saying that this purchase by year three will be making them money. If they were doing this rollout without the purchase it would actually cost them 8 billion more per year and take 5 more years. So not only does this switch it on faster it does it in a quarter of the price so there is opportunity to lower prices.
Click to expand...


So how exactly is spending $39Bil on a company which has no LTE infrastructure, nor current plans to expand to LTE, going to save AT&T $8Bil/yr. and 5yrs. on an LTE rollout?

Also, if AT&T will re-coup their costs in 3 years, then that would mean that T-Mo is generating ~$13Bil net profits annually, for which Deutsche Telekom is done with them? I think those AT&T statements are a little "off", and were said in order to get the deal approved/accepted by govt. and shareholders.

I'm just disappointed that we most likely won't see the $10/mo. web2go plan working @ 84Mbs and 168Mbs.

Qualcomm Announces 84Mbps HSPA+ Chipset, Coming To T-Mobile Sometime Next Year
 
colnago said:
So how exactly is spending $39Bil on a company which has no LTE infrastructure, nor current plans to expand to LTE, going to save AT&T $8Bil/yr. and 5yrs. on an LTE rollout?

Also, if AT&T will re-coup their costs in 3 years, then that would mean that T-Mo is generating ~$13Bil net profits annually, for which Deutsche Telekom is done with them? I think those AT&T statements are a little "off", and were said in order to get the deal approved/accepted by govt. and shareholders.

I'm just disappointed that we most likely won't see the $10/mo. web2go plan working @ 84Mbs and 168Mbs.

Qualcomm Announces 84Mbps HSPA+ Chipset, Coming To T-Mobile Sometime Next Year
Click to expand...


Because all the spectrum for aws will be converted to LTE have you not read the plan on ATT and tmobiles site. ATT will now not have to build towers or infrastructures its all in place so the existing towers will just be fitted with all frequencies and its on. Saving massive R&D and massive build out monies
 
colnago said:
So how exactly is spending $39Bil on a company which has no LTE infrastructure, nor current plans to expand to LTE, going to save AT&T $8Bil/yr. and 5yrs. on an LTE rollout?
Click to expand...

Because AT&T is buying a bunch of installed towers with back-haul already attached and the spectrum to use them. They don't have to pay for the land rights to tower sites, materials to build towers, shipping to move the material to the tower sites, labor to construct them and run lines from the NOC to the towers. They just have to pay for new LTE antennas using the 1700 MHz spectrum and the labor to put those antennas on the towers.

Qualcomm Announces 84Mbps HSPA+ Chipset, Coming To T-Mobile Sometime Next Year
Click to expand...

WANT!
 
fangorious said:
Because AT&T is buying a bunch of installed towers with back-haul already attached and the spectrum to use them. They don't have to pay for the land rights to tower sites, materials to build towers, shipping to move the material to the tower sites, labor to construct them and run lines from the NOC to the towers. They just have to pay for new LTE antennas using the 1700 MHz spectrum and the labor to put those antennas on the towers.



WANT!
Click to expand...


Exactly !!! THUS saving tons of money
 
AndreaCristiano said:
Because all the spectrum for aws will be converted to LTE have you not read the plan on ATT and tmobiles site. ATT will now not have to build towers or infrastructures its all in place so the existing towers will just be fitted with all frequencies and its on. Saving massive R&D and massive build out monies
Click to expand...


But T-Mo has no better presence that what AT&T already has. I would think that AT&T has the larger/better footprint given T-Mo is more of the "Metropolitan" carrier (T-Mo coverage off major routes/developed areas is weak at best).

If AT&T is "only" going to put LTE on T-Mo towers (i.e. not upgrade existing 850/1900 towers with LTE), they will still have to spend on LTE equipment...and don't expect great reception,especially on that 1700 band. Coupled with the fact that they still have the 700 band(s), I still think those figures are overstated.

FWIW, I've made multiple posts regarding AT&T's plan to deploy LTE on the 1700 band.
 
colnago said:
But T-Mo has no better presence that what AT&T already has. I would think that AT&T has the larger/better footprint given T-Mo is more of the "Metropolitan" carrier (T-Mo coverage off major routes/developed areas is weak at best).

If AT&T is "only" going to put LTE on T-Mo towers (i.e. not upgrade existing 850/1900 towers with LTE), they will still have to spend on LTE equipment...and don't expect great reception,especially on that 1700 band. Coupled with the fact that they still have the 700 band(s), I still think those figures are overstated.

FWIW, I've made multiple posts regarding AT&T's plan to deploy LTE on the 1700 band.
Click to expand...


It's about the saturation. For instance in nyc where ATT is over run this acquisition will give them 1000 more towers and all that extra spectrum. Situation is the same in San Fran
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom