3 ms·

>Just look at the US: Their networks are inter-state, and as a result of having to cover such a large landmass it is almost non competitive. You have three comp

by aestra 13y ago

>Just look at the US: Their networks are inter-state, and as a result of having to cover such a large landmass it is almost non competitive. You have three companies controlling the whole country. Prices are extremely high and services/choice is poor. Where are you getting 3 from? Verizon, Sprint,(CDMA) AT&T, T-Mobile.(GSM) That's 4. There was a proposal for AT&T to buy T-Mobile but the Justice Department blocked that merger to preserve competition in the cellphone business.[1][2] [1]http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2011/08/justice-department-blocks-merger-between-att-and-t-mobile-cellphone-networks/ http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2011/08/justice-depar... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_purchase_of_T-Mobile_USA_by_AT%26T http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_purchase_of_T-Mobile_...

untog 13y ago
T-Mobile's coverage is poor in non-metro areas (I say this as a T-Mobile subscriber). The idea of a state-based phone operator that allows roaming from other states is an interesting one (though I'll admit I have no idea how it would play out)
- aestra 13y ago
  You have no arguments from me about T-Mobile's coverage, as a former T-Mobile subscriber myself, but you can't say it doesn't exist. AT&T paid T-Mobile billions of dollars as a result of the failed merger, so they were going to supposedly use that to improve their network. I didn't notice an improvement.
  - untog 13y ago
    Well, T-Mobile has LTE now (I use it). So it seems they used the cash to upgrade their existing network rather than expand it.
- aestra 13y ago
  Years ago (before smart phones and data plans) I had a friend who signed up with Sprint at address #1 with free roaming on his plan. He then went to school at address #2 and used his phone mostly at address #2 where he was roaming because Sprint didn't have coverage. Sprint didn't like this, because he was costing them more money to roam than to use their network, so Sprint dropped him as a customer for roaming too much. With our currently mobile population, I'm not sure everyone would like that. I have a phone number from a place I haven't lived in the past 6 years. I'm never going to change my number, and I know I'm going to move to a new place sometime in my life, probably more than once.

by aestra 13y ago

untog 13y ago

T-Mobile's coverage is poor in non-metro areas (I say this as a T-Mobile subscriber). The idea of a state-based phone operator that allows roaming from other states is an interesting one (though I'll admit I have no idea how it would play out)

aestra 13y ago
You have no arguments from me about T-Mobile's coverage, as a former T-Mobile subscriber myself, but you can't say it doesn't exist. AT&T paid T-Mobile billions of dollars as a result of the failed merger, so they were going to supposedly use that to improve their network. I didn't notice an improvement.
- untog 13y ago
  Well, T-Mobile has LTE now (I use it). So it seems they used the cash to upgrade their existing network rather than expand it.
aestra 13y ago
Years ago (before smart phones and data plans) I had a friend who signed up with Sprint at address #1 with free roaming on his plan. He then went to school at address #2 and used his phone mostly at address #2 where he was roaming because Sprint didn't have coverage. Sprint didn't like this, because he was costing them more money to roam than to use their network, so Sprint dropped him as a customer for roaming too much. With our currently mobile population, I'm not sure everyone would like that. I have a phone number from a place I haven't lived in the past 6 years. I'm never going to change my number, and I know I'm going to move to a new place sometime in my life, probably more than once.