Interesting article - thanks RicoLX! 
The following comments from the Sprint PR rep are interesting - probably need to be taken with a grain of salt considering the source, but interesting nonetheless, I thought. Particularly his points re: opponents having said there is no way to fix this deal because the DOJ antitrust requirements would require a settlement to create another national carrier. (I don't know whether that is an accurate statement or not, but if it is it does seem to be an insurmountable obstacle to a settlement agreement.)
It's really too bad and a difficult situation since DT has repeatedly said they won't remain in this market - at least not in a viable and competitive form. But in my own personal opinion, at&t has not done right by their customers in terms of the current technology (i.e. 3G service), so to carte blanche just hand them the reins so they can try to do something "better" with the next generation of technology would be a sickening outcome.
Maybe there are legitimate reasons for my 3G experiences, but if there are no one has explained it to me - which I wish they would. (I'm not a techie and certainly don't have much knowledge re: network technologies and the backbone supporting infrastructure such as backhaul, etc.)
I simply don't understand how I can be comparing two different instances of two phones side by side (not the same model but same manufacturer so I would think the browser comparison would at least be "reasonable" - an at&t branded SE W580i (2G) vs. an at&t branded SE W518a (3G), and a non-branded Nokia E70-2 (2G, smartphone) vs. a non-branded Nokia E7 (3G, smartphone)) - in both cases with the 3G phone on the 3G network, while the initial connection to the internet was slightly faster on the 3G device (only with the Nokia), in both cases all subsequent page changes while browsing, the connection was equally fast (sometimes exceeded) on the 2G phone. (And realistically, although I didn't go back and test it with the "always on" setting turned on in the Nokia E70, I feel the initial connection speed difference in the Nokias can probably be explained by the fact that I have the "always on" connection turned on in the E7 for e-mail polling (never used it with the E70). I am on the 3G network - the phone indicates that and I have the ability for simultaneous voice and data use.
And I've complained at the at&t store, they checked my account provisioning and gave me a new SIM so that should not be the issue. In a nutshell, my 3G experience has been a complete non-event; and I don't trust that LTE won't turn out to be exactly the same with at&t - at least without some explanation as to "why" I'm seeing the results I"ve had with 3G vs. "why" it's legitimately expected to be different with LTE. At this point, I couldn't care less if the merger not taking place hampers at&t's efforts at LTE, as I say "upgrade/fix the network you've already got so that it gives all customers the promised results." Or if you are somehow hindering my internet access due to the phones I'm using to aid other devices in order to deal with network congestion (maybe a stretch) - be publicly honest about it and explain how that is going to be resolved with an LTE implementation.
hme83 wrote:Interesting article - thanks RicoLX!
And I've complained at the at&t store, they checked my account provisioning and gave me a new SIM so that should not be the issue. In a nutshell, my 3G experience has been a complete non-event; and I don't trust that LTE won't turn out to be exactly the same with at&t - at least without some explanation as to "why" I'm seeing the results I"ve had with 3G vs. "why" it's legitimately expected to be different with LTE. At this point, I couldn't care less if the merger not taking place hampers at&t's efforts at LTE, as I say "upgrade/fix the network you've already got so that it gives all customers the promised results." Or if you are somehow hindering my internet access due to the phones I'm using to aid other devices in order to deal with network congestion (maybe a stretch) - be publicly honest about it and explain how that is going to be resolved with an LTE implementation.
HME83, thank you, and I want to say you have posted a well informed and very interesting points too . I wanted to highlight just an excerpt of your post regarding the 3G current status, 4G LTE network upgrade and how I too, have observed how ATT seem to have planned their Coverage expansion/network upgrade.
Like you said, it does appear that AT&T has not done right by its customers (from what i can see, since the rebranding back to AT&T from Cingular). But to pinpont the pivotal turning point more specifically, It seem that our services, coverage, even new device releases were more adequate and acceptible up to 2007 before the iphone was released on the network.
From that moment on, ATT has catered literally to this one phone , falling way behind other carriers in new device releases and choices, leaving the majority of customers with little to no support while iphone issues and fixes were top priority. Especially the very day the iphone was released and embarassed ATT when the network could not handle the usage.
Buying out another carrier and using their towers as part of the network upgrade seem to be an easy way out, especially since its been reported that they already have more spectrum and resources to accomplish the same thing without T-Mobile. That again, lead to why didnt they do so before now?
Your last statement i too believe , that if att has been hindering all other customer network experience while revamping the network to "keep" apples interest , they should at least be open about it. But that part of the business we the customer will never be privy to.
Lets hope that now , since all carriers that exist today have the Iphone in their catalog, ATT will first, "remove the iphone upgrade link" from our accounts so that we dont get subjected to subliminal or 'pressure' ads and show a variety of devices that change up each time we log on. Hoping ATT doesnt put all their eggs on one basket again.
Think about if it was not approved - AT&T would be out a "mere" $39 billion. And with Deutsche Telekom so anxious to get T-Mobile off their hands, I don't think they'll even consider giving AT&T any refunds. I don't know about you guys, but I'd be pretty steamed somewhat wasting $39 billion on a failed merger.
Remember that Wild Banchi... 1993-2010 
Posted from Apple iPod Touch
Wild Banchi wrote:
I think it would be very interesting if this deal did not go through. It seemed like it was a done deal at first, almost as if it would take effect right away by how confident AT&T seemed in the buyout of T-Mobile. But, we all know, it could take years for the two companies to finally merge together as one.
Think about if it was not approved - AT&T would be out a "mere" $39 billion. And with Deutsche Telekom so anxious to get T-Mobile off their hands, I don't think they'll even consider giving AT&T any refunds. I don't know about you guys, but I'd be pretty steamed somewhat wasting $39 billion on a failed merger.
I hear you WB, one would expect a company to go bazerk over losing that much invested in a deal gone sour. But for att, thats play money, you know, "monopoly" money (pun intended) Like another post said, that amount and more is probably already factored into the entire scenario...in case it does go down the "drink".
BUT.. i dont see att still "not" going after it somehow, either suing tmo toget it or passing the 39 smackeroo debt down to us the customers
I suggest they go back to the name Cingular (they're that anyway, just d/b/a ATT), then the deal can go through; after it does, change it back to ATT! 
We already saw that with Cingular and ATT stores, some ATT stores closed and Cingular stayed open; then any Cingular stores that were left, became ATT.
I still say if this were Team Red, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. ATT has always been a target.
