Would be something nice to see

[timmyh318]

Yea i think its a good idea to. Not sure about keeping the cricket name but i guess cricket is better known than aio. Plus they still got go phone. Part of the deal is they have to keep a 40 dollar 500 mb plan available for 18 months, they have to honor all cricket suscribers plans as long as the cdma network is active (which wont be long att wants that spectrum for there lte they care less about the 5 million customers of cricket), they must convert all of leaps clear spectrum to lte and they have to divest spectrum in 12 markets. Not to bad.

 

[kate]

But doesn't att have their own actual prepaid division, aio wireless...

They're going to merge that into the Cricket brand and bring that one nationwide

Here's their site on the Cricket & Aio merger:

Home | New Cricket Merger Info

 

[OcalaFlGuy]

Boy has THAT got the ATnSleeze stank all over it.

First they separate the news so that only the Cricket subscribers see they're the ones that Will have to get new equipment.

In "the not so distant future". ATnSleeze for tomorrow if that's what we decide to do.

Bruce in Ocala, Fl

 

[timmyh318]

Its the same thing t mobile did to metro customers. T mobile is actually decomissioning cdma sooner in some areas than they originally said. At least att is being honest in saying you dont have much time and not making any promises of 2 years that they have no intentions to keep. Plus att is in a different place than t mobile. Att dont care about 5 million prepaid suscribers. They can afford the loss. If only half the people upgrade to a gsm device and stays with cricket there fine with that. T mobile needed the 7 plus million suscribers of metro. If t mobile was in att's position i can almost say for certain they would of done the same thing and decomission cdma as soon as possible. It makes smart business sense. Att needs the spectrum t mobile needed the suscriber revenue. Simple as that.

 

[OcalaFlGuy]

No it's not.

I would bet money that no Metro subscriber will lose their service within the *2 years* notice they were given.


Technically, if you take it word for word, T-Metro has done everything for Metro and T-Mo customers they said they were going to.


Bruce in Ocala, Fl-who knows what it's like to have to get ATnSleeze stank off himself

 

[timmyh318]

Again different companies in different places. Att dont need the suscribers as much as they need the spectrum. T mobile needs every person it can get. If t mobile was in att's position they would of done the exact same thing. Dont think t mobile actually cares about metro pcs users. They care about bottom line. Just like every other corporation.

 

[Gman9831]

Its the same thing t mobile did to metro customers. T mobile is actually decomissioning cdma sooner in some areas than they originally said. At least att is being honest in saying you dont have much time and not making any promises of 2 years that they have no intentions to keep. Plus att is in a different place than t mobile. Att dont care about 5 million prepaid suscribers. They can afford the loss. If only half the people upgrade to a gsm device and stays with cricket there fine with that. T mobile needed the 7 plus million suscribers of metro. If t mobile was in att's position i can almost say for certain they would of done the same thing and decomission cdma as soon as possible. It makes smart business sense. Att needs the spectrum t mobile needed the suscriber revenue. Simple as that.

But they'll be expanding roaming to the markets that they're shutting down early till the original shutdown date.

It wasn't really for the 8.9M customers or the subscriber revenue either, it was for the spectrum that lined up exactly with theirs. Also the ability to sell the company more easily since it's shares. DT bought them then loaded TMUS with the debt

Like Bruce said they've been doing it word for word and then some. They had promised discounts near the shutdown date on phones with compatibility for the new network but they started the discounts long before that with the phones for $29

 

[OcalaFlGuy]

I never said nor implied there was any caring about customers per se going on.

OTOH, It does appear to Me that both Metro and T-Mo have seen and learned from what violating The Floating Volkswagen Axiom[1] will do from ATnSleeze and Sprint having done it.


[1] You can Definitely screw over your customers, just not INdefinitely. (From the VW ad campaign, "A Volkswagen will Definitely float, just not indefinitely.")

Bruce in Ocala, Fl

 

[timmyh318]

But they'll be expanding roaming to the markets that they're shutting down early till the original shutdown date.

It wasn't really for the 8.9M customers or the subscriber revenue either, it was for the spectrum that lined up exactly with theirs. Also the ability to sell the company more easily since it's shares. DT bought them then loaded TMUS with the debt

Like Bruce said they've been doing it word for word and then some. They had promised discounts near the shutdown date on phones with compatibility for the new network but they started the discounts long before that with the phones for $29

Oh i wouldnt say it wasnt for the 8 million. It may not be the only reason but when your in 4th place out of 4 any 8 million boost looks good. Yes theyll provide roaming. I believe on sprint but that wasnt what they said they were gonna do originally. Either way it is a set up to be bought out. All there words are saying the same. But to the att point t mobile would of done the same if they were in att's position. When t mobile bought metro if they had over 100 million suscribers they would of began shutting down cdma instantly. No question. The cdma network would of served them no purpose. Just like crickets serves att no purpose. There is no "good guy" carrier the blind loyality always amuses me. Every single carrier does the exact same thing. Every single one of them will do what benefits them above others. Sometimes this works for the consumers advantage sometimes not. If t mobile had 100 million people guess what t mobile would charge just as much would be just as strict and have the same tiered data att and verizon has. They dont have that base so they have to undercut. Have to offer discounts have to offer unlimited data. You think they want to? Not a chance. They want to fatten there pockets like everyone else.

 

[DirtyDee]

Oh i wouldnt say it wasnt for the 8 million. It may not be the only reason but when your in 4th place out of 4 any 8 million boost looks good. Yes theyll provide roaming. I believe on sprint but that wasnt what they said they were gonna do originally. Either way it is a set up to be bought out. All there words are saying the same. But to the att point t mobile would of done the same if they were in att's position. When t mobile bought metro if they had over 100 million suscribers they would of began shutting down cdma instantly. No question. The cdma network would of served them no purpose. Just like crickets serves att no purpose. There is no "good guy" carrier the blind loyality always amuses me. Every single carrier does the exact same thing. Every single one of them will do what benefits them above others. Sometimes this works for the consumers advantage sometimes not. If t mobile had 100 million people guess what t mobile would charge just as much would be just as strict and have the same tiered data att and verizon has. They dont have that base so they have to undercut. Have to offer discounts have to offer unlimited data. You think they want to? Not a chance. They want to fatten there pockets like everyone else.

No one will deny that at all. In fact I down right agree, the reality is the one we are living. Also does it seem like tmobile is hoping for a failed merger with sprint to get some quick cash and spectrum.

 

[Gman9831]

No one will deny that at all. In fact I down right agree, the reality is the one we are living. Also does it seem like tmobile is hoping for a failed merger with sprint to get some quick cash and spectrum.

I don't think so because they would have to regain the momentum that they currently have and then Son said he isn't interested in paying out a large breakup fee.

 

[DirtyDee]

I don't think so because they would have to regain the momentum that they currently have and then Son said he isn't interested in paying out a large breakup fee.

If they don't want to pay a break up fee then he should stop trying hint that he wants to buy...

 

[timmyh318]

I think they are really hoping son can convince the fcc and doj to pass the merger. Son's not stupid he wont make the same breakup offer att made. Att didnt think it would get shot down and promised the moon. Itll be interesting to see if the new cricket puts any pressure on metro actually. They have almost identical plans just cricket has the larger more consistant att network behind it. Up in fort myers they got an aio store and a metro corporate store right next to each other and honestly the aio store seems to get more traffic.

 

[Gman9831]

If they don't want to pay a break up fee then he should stop trying hint that he wants to buy...

It's not that he doesn't want to pay one it's just a large one he's not willing to pay. I think he should stop pursuing it regardless.

One of the issues Son is discussing is how to structure a deal without a large breakup fee, two of the people said. ATT had to pay roughly $7B in cash and assets when its agreement to acquire T-Mobile fell apart in 2011, following opposition from the DoJ and FCC

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/20...approach-six-banks-to-fund-t-mobile-deal.html

 

[timmyh318]

It's not that he doesn't want to pay one it's just a large one he's not willing to pay. I think he should stop pursuing it regardless.

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/20...approach-six-banks-to-fund-t-mobile-deal.html

Theres always the option to to continue as business as usual keep all 4 carriers seperate with the hope/ option of a more ill say corporate friendly admistration being elected into office in 2016. Its still 2 years away and never guaranteed but it is an option.