Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"On average, the reported AT&T iPhone transfer rates were roughly two times faster than the Verizon iPhone's."
"The results come from 43,000 AT&T iPhones and 14,000 Verizon iPhones all over the United States."
"Most Speedtest.net app users ran the tests multiple times, totaling 106,000 results from AT&T iPhone users and 49,000 results from Verizon iPhone users."
"A lot of the commentary, complaints, and denunciations about the AT&T plan to buy T-Mobile begins with the assumption that fewer players in a market automatically means less competition and therefore greater customer victimization. That assumption is fundamentally wrong"
"fewer companies competing for customers for a specific good or service -- is not inherently anti-competitive. In fact, it can be a sign of greater competition: the stakes are higher for the fewer participants, so they compete more fiercely."
"No doubt some companies would relish the ability to charge nosebleed prices to goose profits, but frequently the surer path to profits is lower prices that drive exponentially more sales on the way to even greater profits"
"it’s fair to suggest that it could not attract the financing necessary to complete the purchase if its plan was to raise prices. Not only would such a move be unrealistic given the existence of Verizon and other smaller competitors, it would also be self-defeating for high prices signaling to those outside the mobile-phone space a potentially profitable competitive opportunity."
"The fact that there were choices kept prices down. It's kind of like when you see one gas station next to another with the same price...Verizon and AT&T are almost identical in price" - Lancet71
On the contrary, there were plenty of choices 10 years ago. Since then, there has been 27 wireless mergers/buyouts. Since 1999, wireless service prices has declined by 50%. So, it shows you that consolidation is what brings prices down.
And you are right, it is kind of like two gas stations right next to eachother with similar prices. However, the gas station that chooses to lower its prices will get more customers. With that pull, it would force the other gas station to lower it's prices to compete for the same customers. Thus, you have two competing gas stations.
I have worked for different cell phone carriers and they have the same service for the most part.
Simple question...would you rather have a company with alot of towers and is constantly expanding or a company with most of their coverage based on roaming that is apprehensive and slow with adding towers. Obviously i'd expect you to want to be with the company that wants to expand and improve their network...and that is not AT&T or T-Mobile.
I have accomplished exactly what you have accomplished. Did you not mention in one of the past threads on this topic that to defend the argument properly, you link and include proper references? I defended the point, with a link to one of the most respected tech sites on the web. Mind you, this is also a test conducted in one of the largest cities in the USA. I think the test holds merit, and validates what I say completely. The Verizon phone in most of the tests completely STOMPED AT&T's service, including having service in some areas that AT&T couldn't even pick up reception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen1110
"A lot of the commentary, complaints, and denunciations about the AT&T plan to buy T-Mobile begins with the assumption that fewer players in a market automatically means less competition and therefore greater customer victimization. That assumption is fundamentally wrong"
"fewer companies competing for customers for a specific good or service -- is not inherently anti-competitive. In fact, it can be a sign of greater competition: the stakes are higher for the fewer participants, so they compete more fiercely."
"No doubt some companies would relish the ability to charge nosebleed prices to goose profits, but frequently the surer path to profits is lower prices that drive exponentially more sales on the way to even greater profits"
"it’s fair to suggest that it could not attract the financing necessary to complete the purchase if its plan was to raise prices. Not only would such a move be unrealistic given the existence of Verizon and other smaller competitors, it would also be self-defeating for high prices signaling to those outside the mobile-phone space a potentially profitable competitive opportunity."
"The fact that there were choices kept prices down. It's kind of like when you see one gas station next to another with the same price...Verizon and AT&T are almost identical in price" - Lancet71
On the contrary, there were plenty of choices 10 years ago. Since then, there has been 27 wireless mergers/buyouts. Since 1999, wireless service prices has declined by 50%. So, it shows you that consolidation is what brings prices down.
And you are right, it is kind of like two gas stations right next to eachother with similar prices. However, the gas station that chooses to lower its prices will get more customers. With that pull, it would force the other gas station to lower it's prices to compete for the same customers. Thus, you have two competing gas stations.
Go ahead and do a Google search of how it is expected that AT&T will raise prices once the merger is complete. There are DOZENS of sites purporting to this thought. Yes, it is just speculation at this point, but if the past proves anything, it will prove correct again. Further, AT&T may TEMPORARILY gain the lead of the major carriers. Again, this is temporary, as prices start to hike, people may be more willing to make an exodus away from the giant. Don't forget all the prepaid carriers out there, including big ones like Cricket, Metro PCS, and Virgin Mobile, which offer VERY compelling prices for what they have to offer. I wouldn't be surprised IN THE LEAST if AT&T loses a large volume of their customer base to them, once the merger is complete.
Lets just hope AT&T doesn't get too proud, and be noncompetitive, thus alienating the rest of their loyal customer base (which, evidentally includes you, as you seem to be COMPLETELY oblivioius to the high liklihood of problems occuring due to this merger). Speaking of which, I do not understand why you feel your argument is the only one out there, and you completely down how others feel about their service, or history with AT&T. I don't believe any provider can provide 100% satisfactory coverage, but to put AT&T in the glowing light you have done, is irresponsible to the facts you are trying to present. There are pros and cons to any company, and your points would be better believed if you included both sides.
"On average, the reported AT&T iPhone transfer rates were roughly two times faster than the Verizon iPhone's."
"The results come from 43,000 AT&T iPhones and 14,000 Verizon iPhones all over the United States."
"Most Speedtest.net app users ran the tests multiple times, totaling 106,000 results from AT&T iPhone users and 49,000 results from Verizon iPhone users."
"A lot of the commentary, complaints, and denunciations about the AT&T plan to buy T-Mobile begins with the assumption that fewer players in a market automatically means less competition and therefore greater customer victimization. That assumption is fundamentally wrong"
"fewer companies competing for customers for a specific good or service -- is not inherently anti-competitive. In fact, it can be a sign of greater competition: the stakes are higher for the fewer participants, so they compete more fiercely."
"No doubt some companies would relish the ability to charge nosebleed prices to goose profits, but frequently the surer path to profits is lower prices that drive exponentially more sales on the way to even greater profits"
"it’s fair to suggest that it could not attract the financing necessary to complete the purchase if its plan was to raise prices. Not only would such a move be unrealistic given the existence of Verizon and other smaller competitors, it would also be self-defeating for high prices signaling to those outside the mobile-phone space a potentially profitable competitive opportunity."
"The fact that there were choices kept prices down. It's kind of like when you see one gas station next to another with the same price...Verizon and AT&T are almost identical in price" - Lancet71
On the contrary, there were plenty of choices 10 years ago. Since then, there has been 27 wireless mergers/buyouts. Since 1999, wireless service prices has declined by 50%. So, it shows you that consolidation is what brings prices down.
And you are right, it is kind of like two gas stations right next to eachother with similar prices. However, the gas station that chooses to lower its prices will get more customers. With that pull, it would force the other gas station to lower it's prices to compete for the same customers. Thus, you have two competing gas stations.
Wrong. When 2 gas stations are next to each other, they are normally exactly the same price unless their name is Mobil. Verizon and AT&T were almost exactly the same in price and the only difference was that most people who have had experiences with them said that Verizons coverage for calls and data was better and their customer service was miles ahead. The only thing that AT&T had going for them was the exclusive rights to the IPhone...now that's gone. T-Mobile was a budget carrier and Sprint is somewhere in between but with much better coverage than TM or AT&T. AT&T saw the potential Sprint/T-Mobile merger as a threat that would have put them to #3 out of 3 and that's why they jumped in. Face it, they have alot of customers and soon enough alot of fear from T-Mobile subscribers. People who subscribe to TM want low rates and are settling and understand that. This is a bad match for them. Maybe you will be objective and non biased one day. I had Verizon but left them a couple of years ago because I didn't like their pricing but their service and customer service was the best. Now i'm with Sprint and there is a slight drop off in coverage when I travel but the rates are more user friendly for me, but at the same time I wasn't willing to do a complete dropoff, so this was my easy choice.
"Mind you, this is also a test conducted in one of the largest cities in the USA. I think the test holds merit, and validates what I say completely" - txsizzler
Yes, you are right, but that's not what I'm arguing. 4 locations in San Francisco is not a nationwide test conducted by 57,000 iPhones in 156,000 results. Your San Francisco impact is not as big as a nationwide impact. AT&T iPhone 4 is 2x faster nationwide.
"There are DOZENS of sites purporting to this thought" - txsizzler
And their thoughts are completely unfounded.
"which, evidentally includes you, as you seem to be COMPLETELY oblivioius to the high liklihood of problems occuring due to this merger" - txsizzler
There will plenty of benefits. The problems you speak of, prices?, as you said, are only speculation, and if the past proves anything, the speculation is indeed unfounded.
"Speaking of which, I do not understand why you feel your argument is the only one out there, and you completely down how others feel about their service, or history with AT&T."- txsizzler
That's not how I feel. I believe everyone has something to bring to the table.
"There are pros and cons to any company, and your points would be better believed if you included both sides." - txsizzler
Correct! I've done that ^ in this thread. I'll do it more often.
I repped you..
"When 2 gas stations are next to each other, they are normally exactly the same price" - Lancet71
My point exactly. Think about it.
"Maybe you will be objective and non biased one day" - Lancet71
"When looking for faults, use a mirror, not a telescope" - ???
"Mind you, this is also a test conducted in one of the largest cities in the USA. I think the test holds merit, and validates what I say completely" - txsizzler
Yes, you are right, but that's not what I'm arguing. 4 locations in San Francisco is not a nationwide test conducted by 57,000 iPhones in 156,000 results. Your San Francisco impact is not as big as a nationwide impact. AT&T iPhone 4 is 2x faster nationwide.
"There are DOZENS of sites purporting to this thought" - txsizzler
And their thoughts are completely unfounded.
"which, evidentally includes you, as you seem to be COMPLETELY oblivioius to the high liklihood of problems occuring due to this merger" - txsizzler
There will plenty of benefits. The problems you speak of, prices?, as you said, are only speculation, and if the past proves anything, the speculation is indeed unfounded.
"Speaking of which, I do not understand why you feel your argument is the only one out there, and you completely down how others feel about their service, or history with AT&T."- txsizzler
That's not how I feel. I believe everyone has something to bring to the table.
"There are pros and cons to any company, and your points would be better believed if you included both sides." - txsizzler
Correct! I've done that ^ in this thread. I'll do it more often.
I repped you..
"When 2 gas stations are next to each other, they are normally exactly the same price" - Lancet71
My point exactly. Think about it.
"Maybe you will be objective and non biased one day" - Lancet71
"When looking for faults, use a mirror, not a telescope" - ???
When looking for faults use your eyes and take off the blinders. Just because your are an AT&T employee doesn't make the shortcomings of YOUR company untrue. Facts are facts. True coverage is true coverage and roaming is roaming. If all 4 major companies originally had the IPhone, AT&T never would have had the subscribers they currently have.
In my area Verizon has the best service. We tried AT&T and it was so terrible we had to pay to get out of our contract and went back with Verizon. It was an expensive mistake.
Actually when AT&T got T-Mobile it became the largest. It does not have 4G coverage yet
Verizon is second largest and actually has superior coverage in large cities whereas AT&T is spotty. Neither AT&T or T-Mobile beats the Sprint/VZN CMDA coverage in city or rural as they roam on the same towers.
The real test will be who can beat Sprint's 4G which is very fast now. Sprint's LTE will put AT&T to shame in metro areas. There is a caveat. None of the carriers will build out 4G in rural areas for some time, if at all.
Actually when AT&T got T-Mobile it became the largest.
I made my post long before the merger was announced. In addition, the merger isn't exactly in the bag. It still needs to be approved and we still don't know what they will need to divest if it is approved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by linicx
None of the carriers will build out 4G in rural areas for some time, if at all.
Verizon 4G LTE is available in 38 markets and over 60 major airports, covering approximately 110 million people. We’re aggressively expanding to cover our entire existing nationwide 3G footprint with 4G LTE by the end of 2013.
Actually when AT&T got T-Mobile it became the largest.
This hasn't happend yet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've done that ^ in this thread. I'll do it more often.
Think about it.
No
