The FCC says "the delay is necessary to allow sufficient time not only
for the FCC to evaluate and test this new evidence, but also for third
parties to have an opportunity to provide feedback to the FCC on the
contents and construction of the yet-unseen models."
"The FCC will restart the clock once the new evidence has been provided
in a format and with sufficient explanation and back-up information to
enable the FCC, and third parties entitled to have access to the
information, to adequately evaluate it. The FCC will also allow time
before restarting the clock for those third parties to have a meaningful
opportunity to comment on the submission."
"Arnie Goetchius" <arnie.goetchius@invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:j09466$rnq$1@dont-email.me...
> The FCC says "the delay is necessary to allow sufficient time not only
> for the FCC to evaluate and test this new evidence, but also for third
> parties to have an opportunity to provide feedback to the FCC on the
> contents and construction of the yet-unseen models."
>
> "The FCC will restart the clock once the new evidence has been
> provided in a format and with sufficient explanation and back-up
> information to enable the FCC, and third parties entitled to have
> access to the information, to adequately evaluate it. The FCC will
> also allow time before restarting the clock for those third parties to
> have a meaningful opportunity to comment on the submission."
>
> http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/201...0/18685456.php
So that means the merger may take longer than a year?
"XS11E" <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9F29A3DCB90F3xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1...
>> So that means the merger may take longer than a year?
>
> Barring unforeseen weirdness, add 18 months to whatever time frame
> you'd used previously.
>
> "XS11E" <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9F29A3DCB90F3xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1...
>>> So that means the merger may take longer than a year?
>>
>> Barring unforeseen weirdness, add 18 months to whatever time frame
>> you'd used previously.
>
> I'd rather add a lifetime to it.
Ditto but I'm afraid that's not possible. T-Mo wants out and if the
AT&T buyout doesn't happen something else will and it'll probably be as
bad or worse.
At least the AT&T buyout gives me an easy decision to go back to VZW as
soon as AT&T screws with me which, based on past experiences, will be
almost immediately after the deal is closed. <G>
"XS11E" <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> Ditto but I'm afraid that's not possible. T-Mo wants out and if the
> AT&T buyout doesn't happen something else will and it'll probably be
> as
> bad or worse.
>
> At least the AT&T buyout gives me an easy decision to go back to VZW
> as
> soon as AT&T screws with me which, based on past experiences, will be
> almost immediately after the deal is closed. <G>
I see your point. I've been dragging my feet in buying a smart phone
till I saw one that really incorporated all the latest technology, not
just one or two, with the rest being a year old. It looks like T-Mo has
accelerated the release of new high-end phones this year and the rumored
Samsung Hercules might be the one for me. Especially if I could get it
with a nice, subsidized 2-year contract that could get me way past the
AT&T merger. However, just now T-Mo seems to be getting out of subsidy
deals and keep changing their plans faster than I change my socks. It's
getting very confusing. It looks like they don't want to carry too much
subsidy into AT&T. I wouldn't mind buying a handset outright if it were
not for my fear of looming LTE technology and being stuck with HSPA
hardware.
> I wouldn't mind buying a handset outright if it were not for my
> fear of looming LTE technology and being stuck with HSPA hardware.
Like you, my crystal ball is very hazy, I have no predictions other
than these:
1. I have no contract, my phones come from Ebay or Craig's List
2. The buyout, if it goes through, will be later rather than sooner.
3. I'm in a good position, I can get a T-Mo phone discounted with
contract, I can port my number to Sprint, VZW, AT&T and get a
discounted phone with a contract, I can port my number to VZW and use
an old phone w/o getting a contract or I can do nothing and see what
happens.
In view of item 2, waiting seems the wisest plan.....
At 22 Jul 2011 10:37:32 -0700 XS11E wrote:
> "Cameo" <cameo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >
> > "XS11E" <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9F29A3DCB90F3xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1...
> >>> So that means the merger may take longer than a year?
> >>
> >> Barring unforeseen weirdness, add 18 months to whatever time frame
> >> you'd used previously.
> >
> > I'd rather add a lifetime to it.
>
> Ditto but I'm afraid that's not possible. T-Mo wants out and if the
> AT&T buyout doesn't happen something else will and it'll probably be as
> bad or worse.
Actually, I thunk a failed merger is the best option for T-Mo customers.
The merger contact includes a penalty clause. If it doesn't happen for
any reason, AT&T has to pony up $6 billion to T-Mo and had agreed to
offer T-Mo nationwide roaming on AT&T at competitive rates.
Essentially this will put T-Mo on coverage parity with AT&T immediately
and fund future expansion that would allow them to remain competitive
long term.
> At least the AT&T buyout gives me an easy decision to go back to VZW as
> soon as AT&T screws with me which, based on past experiences, will be
> almost immediately after the deal is closed. <G>
Yep, I expect AT&T will immediately look for loopholes to weasel out of
any promises to leave T-Mo customers and their plans alone.
> I've been dragging my feet in buying a smart
> phone till I saw one that really incorporated all the latest
> technology, not just one or two, with the rest being a year old. It
> looks like T-Mo has accelerated the release of new high-end phones
> this year and the rumored Samsung Hercules might be the one for me.
> Especially if I could get it with a nice, subsidized 2-year
> contract that could get me way past the AT&T merger. However, just
> now T-Mo seems to be getting out of subsidy deals and keep changing
> their plans faster than I change my socks. It's getting very
> confusing. It looks like they don't want to carry too much subsidy
> into AT&T.
Perhaps. I just think they're trying to compete with Cricket and
MetroPCS on rate plans by separating the subsidy cost from the service.
Instead of selling $70 smartphone rate plans that compete with AT&T and
Verizon, they sell $50 plans that compete with Metro and Cricket, with
the $20/month phone installment payment broken out separately.
> I wouldn't mind buying a handset outright if it were not
> for my fear of looming LTE technology and being stuck with HSPA
> hardware.
I don't get worked up about that stuff. Technology moves so quickly
you'll never have a phone that's current for more than a year or so.
I was out of contract since 2007, using a variety of eBay and Craigslist
phones. When the merger was announced, I grabbed a subsidized phone and
re-upped for two years, figuring that would force AT&T to honor my
grandfathered rate plan for a while.
Now it looks like I'll get at least one more subsidized phone and
contract before the merger happens if it does.
"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> Perhaps. I just think they're trying to compete with Cricket and
> MetroPCS on rate plans by separating the subsidy cost from the
> service.
> Instead of selling $70 smartphone rate plans that compete with AT&T
> and
> Verizon, they sell $50 plans that compete with Metro and Cricket, with
> the $20/month phone installment payment broken out separately.
No Cricket or MetroPCS in my area as far as I know, so T-Mo doesn't have
to worry about them. Whose network are those two using?
> I don't get worked up about that stuff. Technology moves so quickly
> you'll never have a phone that's current for more than a year or so.
Granted, but I don't want it to be already dated when I buy it.
> I was out of contract since 2007, using a variety of eBay and
> Craigslist
> phones. When the merger was announced, I grabbed a subsidized phone
> and
> re-upped for two years, figuring that would force AT&T to honor my
> grandfathered rate plan for a while.
That's my thinking also with locking a contract now but I am not sure I
would trust a phone bought on eBay or Craigslist. Good for you if you
didn't get a lemon that way.
> Actually, I thunk a failed merger is the best option for T-Mo
> customers. The merger contact includes a penalty clause. If it
> doesn't happen for any reason, AT&T has to pony up $6 billion to
> T-Mo and had agreed to offer T-Mo nationwide roaming on AT&T at
> competitive rates.
You KNOW they have a built in "out" somewhere, we're talking AT&T!
They'll weasel out.
> Yep, I expect AT&T will immediately look for loopholes to weasel
> out of any promises to leave T-Mo customers and their plans alone.
Now apply that thinking to the failed buyout penalty clause!
NOTE: There's no loophole needed for your contract, it's right in
the agreement!
================================================== ===================
5. Our Rights to Make Changes. This provision, which describes how
changes may be made to your Agreement, is subject to requirements
and limitations imposed by applicable law, and will not be enforced
to the extent prohibited by law. Your Service is subject to our
business policies, practices, and procedures, which we can change
without notice. WE CAN CHANGE ANY TERMS IN THE AGREEMENT AT ANY
TIME. YOU MAY CANCEL THE AFFECTED LINE OF SERVICE WITHOUT AN EARLY
TERMINATION FEE (if applicable) IF: (A) WE CHANGE YOUR PRICING IN A
MANNER THAT MATERIALLY INCREASES YOUR MONTHLY RECURRING CHARGE(S)
(the amount you agreed to pay each month for voice, data and
messaging, which does not include overage, pay-per-use or optional
services (such as 411, or downloads), or taxes and fees); ( WE
MATERIALLY DECREASE THE SERVICE ALLOTMENTS WE AGREED TO PROVIDE TO
YOU FOR YOUR MONTHLY RECURRING CHARGE; OR (C) WE MATERIALLY CHANGE
A TERM IN THESE T&Cs OTHER THAN PRICING IN A MANNER THAT IS
MATERIALLY ADVERSE TO YOU. WE WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH AT LEAST 30
DAYS' NOTICE OF ANY CHANGE WARRANTING CANCELLATION OF THE AFFECTED
LINE OF SERVICE WITHOUT AN EARLY TERMINATION FEE (WHICH IS YOUR ONLY
REMEDY), AND YOU MUST NOTIFY US WITHIN 14 DAYS AFTER YOU RECEIVE THE
NOTICE, OR AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE NOTICE. IF YOU FAIL TO
TERMINATE WITHIN THE RELEVANT TIMEFRAME, YOU ACCEPT THE CHANGES.
================================================== ===================
Translation, we can do any damn thing we want and if you don't like
it you *M*A*Y* escape the early termination fee. Wanna bet AT&T will
take full advantage of this?
At 23 Jul 2011 09:02:19 -0700 XS11E wrote:
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> > Actually, I thunk a failed merger is the best option for T-Mo
> > customers. The merger contact includes a penalty clause. If it
> > doesn't happen for any reason, AT&T has to pony up $6 billion to
> > T-Mo and had agreed to offer T-Mo nationwide roaming on AT&T at
> > competitive rates.
>
> You KNOW they have a built in "out" somewhere, we're talking AT&T!
> They'll weasel out.
> > Yep, I expect AT&T will immediately look for loopholes to weasel
> > out of any promises to leave T-Mo customers and their plans alone.
>
> Now apply that thinking to the failed buyout penalty clause!
Except my contract with T-Mo didn't have a battery of contract lawyers
protecting my interests looking over it. Presumably T-Mo's lawyers are
satisfied with the penalty clause.
> NOTE: There's no loophole needed for your contract, it's right in
> the agreement!
>
> ================================================== ===================
> 5. Our Rights to Make Changes. This provision, which describes how
> changes may be made to your Agreement, is subject to requirements
> and limitations imposed by applicable law, and will not be enforced
> to the extent prohibited by law. Your Service is subject to our
> business policies, practices, and procedures, which we can change
> without notice. WE CAN CHANGE ANY TERMS IN THE AGREEMENT AT ANY
> TIME. YOU MAY CANCEL THE AFFECTED LINE OF SERVICE WITHOUT AN EARLY
> TERMINATION FEE (if applicable) IF: (A) WE CHANGE YOUR PRICING IN A
> MANNER THAT MATERIALLY INCREASES YOUR MONTHLY RECURRING CHARGE(S)
> (the amount you agreed to pay each month for voice, data and
> messaging, which does not include overage, pay-per-use or optional
> services (such as 411, or downloads), or taxes and fees); ( WE
> MATERIALLY DECREASE THE SERVICE ALLOTMENTS WE AGREED TO PROVIDE TO
> YOU FOR YOUR MONTHLY RECURRING CHARGE; OR (C) WE MATERIALLY CHANGE
> A TERM IN THESE T&Cs OTHER THAN PRICING IN A MANNER THAT IS
> MATERIALLY ADVERSE TO YOU. WE WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH AT LEAST 30
> DAYS' NOTICE OF ANY CHANGE WARRANTING CANCELLATION OF THE AFFECTED
> LINE OF SERVICE WITHOUT AN EARLY TERMINATION FEE (WHICH IS YOUR ONLY
> REMEDY), AND YOU MUST NOTIFY US WITHIN 14 DAYS AFTER YOU RECEIVE THE
> NOTICE, OR AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE NOTICE. IF YOU FAIL TO
> TERMINATE WITHIN THE RELEVANT TIMEFRAME, YOU ACCEPT THE CHANGES.
> ================================================== ===================
>
> Translation, we can do any damn thing we want and if you don't like
> it you *M*A*Y* escape the early termination fee. Wanna bet AT&T will
> take full advantage of this?
That's not what I'm referring to. To facilitate the merger, AT&T is
making and will continue to make promises that the Feds will incorporate
into the deal. One of the current promises is basically to leave T-Mo
customers' plans alone for the near future. (Presumably at least until
they try to upgrade equipment and are forced to take an AT&T plan with
it.)
At 23 Jul 2011 00:25:45 -0700 Cameo wrote:
> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps. I just think they're trying to compete with Cricket and
> > MetroPCS on rate plans by separating the subsidy cost from the service.
> > Instead of selling $70 smartphone rate plans that compete with AT&T
and
> > Verizon, they sell $50 plans that compete with Metro and Cricket, with
> > the $20/month phone installment payment broken out separately.
>
> No Cricket or MetroPCS in my area as far as I know, so T-Mo doesn't
> have to worry about them.
Maybe not in your neck of the woods, but they're clobbering T-Mo
nationally.
> Whose network are those two using?
Their own. They have licenses in several dozen major cities, and roam on
each other via reciprocal agreements.
"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
news:j0fsbl$vur$1@dont-email.me...
>> No Cricket or MetroPCS in my area as far as I know, so T-Mo doesn't
>> have to worry about them.
>
> Maybe not in your neck of the woods, but they're clobbering T-Mo
> nationally.
I am in the Seattle area and only can choose among the 4 big ones.
>
>> Whose network are those two using?
>
> Their own. They have licenses in several dozen major cities, and roam
> on
> each other via reciprocal agreements.
On 7/23/2011 6:24 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 23 Jul 2011 00:25:45 -0700 Cameo wrote:
>> "Todd Allcock"<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Perhaps. I just think they're trying to compete with Cricket and
>>> MetroPCS on rate plans by separating the subsidy cost from the service.
>
>>> Instead of selling $70 smartphone rate plans that compete with AT&T
> and
>>> Verizon, they sell $50 plans that compete with Metro and Cricket, with
>>> the $20/month phone installment payment broken out separately.
>>
>> No Cricket or MetroPCS in my area as far as I know, so T-Mo doesn't
>> have to worry about them.
>
> Maybe not in your neck of the woods, but they're clobbering T-Mo
> nationally.
>
>
>> Whose netw rk are those two using?
>
>
> Their own. They have licenses in several dozen major cities, and roam on
> each other via reciprocal agreements.
And at least on MetroPCS you can pay for roaming on other CDMA carriers.
Today I was in Lassen National Park at the Sulfur Works . No AT&T, no
T-Mobile coverage, but there was Verizon coverage, and presumably
roaming coverage on other CDMA carriers like Sprint and MetroPCS, albeit
at extra cost on MetroPCS. Earlier this week I was roaming onto U.S.
Cellular in Oregon and paying for roaming on Pageplus, but at least I
had coverage unlike the GSM users we were traveling with.
At 23 Jul 2011 23:11:38 -0700 Cameo wrote:
>
> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message news:j0fsbl
$vur$1@dont-email.me...
> >> No Cricket or MetroPCS in my area as far as I know, so T-Mo doesn't
> >> have to worry about them.
> >
> > Maybe not in your neck of the woods, but they're clobbering T-Mo
> > nationally.
>
> I am in the Seattle area and only can choose among the 4 big ones.
Neither of them have come to Seattle yet, though Cricket owns spectrum in
that market, so I expect its only a matter of time. Their users can roam
there on Sprint, currently.
> >> Whose network are those two using?
> >
> > Their own. They have licenses in several dozen major cities, and
roam on
> > each other via reciprocal agreements.
>
> That sounds good, but are they using GSM?
On 7/23/2011 11:11 PM, Cameo wrote:
>
> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
> news:j0fsbl$vur$1@dont-email.me...
>>> No Cricket or MetroPCS in my area as far as I know, so T-Mo doesn't
>>> have to worry about them.
>>
>> Maybe not in your neck of the woods, but they're clobbering T-Mo
>> nationally.
>
> I am in the Seattle area and only can choose among the 4 big ones.
>>
>>> Whose network are those two using?
>>
>> Their own. They have licenses in several dozen major cities, and roam on
>> each other via reciprocal agreements.
>
> That sounds good, but are they using GSM?
No, they are CDMA thank g-d!
Seriously, MetroPCS is a viable choice for many users these days since
they now offer extra-cost voice roaming onto other CDMA carriers. In
fact you get far greater coverage with MetroPCS than you do with
T-Mobile or AT&T if you are traveling through rural areas, but you have
to pay 19¢ per minute. Pageplus is 29¢ per minute for roaming off of
Verizon but of course you do a lot less roaming when Verizon is your
primary carrier versus MetroPCS.
FCC Stops The Clock on AT&T/T-Mobile Merger 
. 
WE
Linear Mode
