Arysyn

That was a good read, kct1975. My view of the situation is that Charter and Comcast are going to try merging together eventually, and are looking to use Sprint as a way to claim they need to merge in order to help "save" Sprint, or in some way use Sprint's misfortunes/desperate situation to get a merger to go through between the three. Then I expect something may end up happening involving Verizon to mix. The ultimate wireless carrier meets telecommunications meets media entertainment company is a combination between Comcast, Charter, Sprint, and Verizon. Between them, they'd have incredible reach in these industries with bundle packages to rival AT&T. If this happens, which really depends on how pro-big business the Trump FCC Administration is, because this will be Hyuuuggge, if approved. It'll be beautiful, believe me. A big beautiful company that'll offer really great media. Except Trump hates NBC. Go figure, maybe it won't happen. After all, there are those SNL Trump skits. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if the executives apologize to get the deal to go through. Then there is the question of T-Mobile. If they don't go with Sprint, I can envision Dish and AT&T getting involved, in order to compete with the other. We'll see...

Does your town even have enough population for all of them? Unless T-Mobile is being smart like Sprint is with their new retail concept, these new stores seem unnecessary. However, typically T-Mobile stores seem closer to the Sprint concept than what AT&T and Verizon have. If these stores where anything like the Duopoly stores, then five definitely is too much!

It is important for Verizon to protect its network, but there are different opinions regarding differing ways of how to do this while still offering service. I don't believe T-Mobile would have done the same to these customers if they were being served by T-Mobile. That is partly why I'm surprised T-Mobile and/or John Legere hasn't spoken out against this in some way. Personally, I believe if customers get angry about a decision resulting in something they don't like/complain about, there is something wrong with what they signed up for, which is the bigger problem than the reaction This is why I understand when people claim unlimited data is Unlimited. After all, the biggest problem with Unlimited is that its using a limited resource. Take away unlimited, replace it with terms that detail the necessary restrictions that come from having networks which have technical limits, that makes it so no one can complain about limits on a limited plan operating on a limited network, as it all is there in the details not acting like something that it is not. Surely, people ought to be more responsible for their usage, but they'd be better at it if they knew more about how this data abuse negatively affects networks. Instead of Verizon barring people from their service as they did, perhaps Verizon could have sent a letter informing them of how the abuse affects their network, and that for the time being, they'd have three available choices, between having a 30gb data cap at normal speed, or Unlimited data at 9mbps speed cap. The other option would be to leave Verizon penalty-free.

I'm surprised AT&T and Verizon haven't increased the deprioritization threshold yet. T-Mobile is offering around 10gb more, and charging the same or less. Regardless of what one thinks about this decision by Verizon, I'm surprised T-Mobile isn't (or John Legere isn't) finding a way to publicly criticize Verizon for this decision and suggesting that Verizon could have done something else to deal with this issue better, while mentioning the differences between the deprioritization limits.

I don't believe this lawsuit even makes sense. From the few Radio Shack stores I went to after the Sprint conversion, the Sprint representatives there were alot nicer and more helpful on their Sprint knowledge than many representatives I've spoken with at various corporate retail stores.

I've always tried to be understanding of both sides to the "Unlimited" debate. I know network resources aren't infinite, but also shouldn't be named "Unlimited", if it can't provide the service. I'd rather carriers go back to per gb caps to 30gb monthly individual plans and end "sharing". Just tell a customer they have the right to access that 30gb within an individual month at full-speed of the network based on equal level of capacity at that time - no deprioritization. After that, either offer additional data, or a speed-capped extension plan.

I wouldn't doubt the possibility of it being moved up closer ahead of time, unless this is a legal set-in-stone issue. If T-Mobile can get this moved faster by paying these companies though, then I believe T-Mobile can get these plans advanced very quickly. T-Mobile even is talking about 2017, which I think is too soon. The SD836 may have the 600mhz spectrum, but I read online it would need to be a modified form of an x16 modem. The fully 600mhz compatible SD845 with the x20 modem won't be available until Spring 2018 likely on the Samsung Galaxy S9 or the LG G7. I expect that will work in areas with 600mhz, which I expect T-Mobile to have covered some markets with 600mhz by then. What T-Mobile ought to be aiming for is a fall 2018 release coinciding with the launch of the Note 9 and the V40. It is possible the 2017 iPhone models won't have 600mhz capabilities, but surely the 2018 iPhone models will. I think that is what T-Mobile ought to be preparing for a major nationwide launch around then, which would be around 18 months from the ending of the auction. That would be a great achievement for T-Mobile to make. Reveal certain markets all throughout the year with contests during each announcement, made on a monthly basis. Then have the major unveiling at the end of the year, coinciding with the launch of the 2018 iPhone. In the meantime, T-Mobile could not only work on that, but also on the Dish merger many T-Mobile fans want. It would boost T-Mobile's 600mhz spectrum holdings 5x5 near nationwide, putting the minimum at 15x15. Another possibility is going after U.S. Cellular, which if an acquisition were successful, along with the Dish merger, would put T-Mobile in a great network position plenty strong enough that it wouldn't need another merger for a very long time.

Quick FYI to everyone here, I'm going to remain with T-Mobile at least for a few months until the LG V30 and Samsung Note 8 gets released, then see what exactly T-Mobile has in mind to offer me, as I've recently mentioned. So, here is a bit of good news in helping me lean towards remaining with T-Mobile, besides the excellent rate I'm getting that isn't going to be any lower from any other carrier, the two line for $100 plan with included HD a/v streaming, plus a $20 monthly discount from the Hookup Offer, $80 monthly total - no fees and no taxes : http://www.tmonews.com/2017/06/t-mobile-rural-pbs-stations-relocate-600mhz-auction/ It seems from that and everything else regarding T-Mobile's rush to deploy 600mhz spectrum, that T-Mobile is intent on getting this done fast. Likely nothing will happen with it this year, probably not even available on the SD836. However next year with the SD845, very likely, and I'm figuring T-Mobile will do everything to get it out by mid-year 2018, pay off broadcasters, etc.

Same here in the Chicago area. While I'm not absolutely certain whether or not my Microsoft Lumia 950XL has ever connected with band 12 or not, due to the Microsoft OS not having a signal reader (that I'm aware of), it sure doesn't seem as though band 12 is working, or well if it has. The inside connection drops at most indoor locations I've been to. Then again, it could be this device too.

There are alot of people on the T-Mobile Reddit and TmoNews website wanting this to happen. Besides, it wouldn't be T-Mobile USA buying Dish, it would be DT buying Dish for business convergence between Dish and T-Mobile.

Well, if Sprint ends up like Verizon/Vodafone 2.0 with Charter/Comcast running Sprint, this leaves a huge opportunity for T-Mobile to go for Dish. If T-Mobile bought Dish, it would be great for both companies in having a minimum 15x15 of 600mhz spectrum nationwide, with 20x20 in a large amount of markets here. If T-Mobile got Dish, the Chicago area would have 20x20, which is an undeniable advantage, especially for the price of the great promotions offered earlier this year, along with ending the indoor network drops T-Mobile still often has here in the Chicago suburbs. In that case, I still wonder if AT&T may try for T-Mobile/Dish, especially for the power in combining the satellite tv industry the way Sirrus XM did for satellite radio. This would leave Sprint to the possible only practical option of Verizon later on for any real wireless merger possibilities later on.

I posted in that thread with a post I went into a different direction about than I initially intended to do. I ended up giving my perspective of having two nationwide cable companies sharing the same cable for national competition, while each company has its own wireless network and spectrum up to band 41, along with their other services, such as one with Dish, the other with Directv, etc. To aid competition, the high-band spectrum could be given to a few independent local companies offering their own WISP IP tv, phone, and internet, while utilizing roaming agreements with other local WISP companies for national connections in a new WiMax-like network using WiFi. The big nationwide carriers using Macro sites with low-band, mid-band, and 2000mhz-range high-band on LTE, while the small local companies using high-band on Small Cells. Although in regard to what I was going to say about the news prior to talking about my thoughts on what I think would be interesting, I really doubt Comcast is going to buy Sprint. I think they'll hold off on that until there are more cable mergers to some degree. Charter may buy out an already combined Sprint/T-Mobile/Dish combination, though certainly much less likely without that combined package of services they can sell as a bundle. Besides, as I mentioned on the other thread that led me in the direction I went into, cable companies really ought to merge before taking on wireless, or at least make pacts for nationwide cable sharing. Otherwise, many markets will be left without a fair choice in bundle options, with many customers going with the one company that can provide the best bunde, while the other companies without cable, won't be able to offer that

I really don't believe these rumors regarding cable company interest in wireless right now. Cable companies would be wasting their money trying to acquire a wireless carrier at this particular moment in time when there already are more important business venture m&a opportunities to be sought after. Particularly relating to their own business, cable internet, phone, and television. The latter two parts of their business is weakening, and in order to remain relevant, or even open for business, cable companies have got to merge and become nationwide entities. If cable companies do not do this, they'll be without the ability to sell complete bundles nationwide for use in the wireless business. Not becoming national will be terrible for customers having to choose whether to save money by going with the only cable provider in their area that also sells cable, or go mixing services with different providers, which likely will cost them more. Competition is only good when it is fair competition. Having multiple companies only offering a few services differing between them while one offers more and can manipulate the price by that, isn't good. I believe its better to have fewer national companies carrying multiple services, the same amount as one another, and selling purely by price, while having stricter governmental regulations and oversight to verify there aren't any price gouging or any monopolistic tactics being done. I'd like to see it broken down to two national companies serving all of these over shared cable, but using their own wireless spectrum, sites, equipment, etc., and having the same type of services available to them, but keeping them from gaining any high-band spectrum above band 41. Instead, let the high-band spectrum go to local specialist carriers that can build a fast, Wifi-sharing network with other small local specialist carriers across the nation, using a new WiMax-like service for people to roam on these other networks as they travel. Let these local specialist carriers have the most small cell access for local build-up to provide a cheaper option for those who don't travel as much, but still want that back-up option I explained for those who do travel. Might cost more than the nationwide carrier option, but as I've said, this primarily would be local and serve local-area WISP for IP TV, IP phone, and internet as local-version competition to national carriers, without having to use the low-band and mid-band spectrum so important to nationwide, Macro-site services.

I envy your brother having those amazing Fios speeds! The Xfinity 250-300 I have here in the Chicago area doesn't even come close to that.

I haven't read the PC Magazine report yet, but it was one of the other network reviews that listed Verizon as first in most areas, with T-Mobile being first in some and second in most others, except AT&T did get some second place reviews, though still basically third. Fourth disappointingly being Sprint. I don't really have anything against AT&T as a company, as I'm glad it is run professionally akin to Verizon and Sprint, not as immaturely with the party atmosphere of T-Mobile. Although I think AT&T is trying to be too much with their growth outside of the U.S., the focus on trying to force build-in all of these video services they've acquired or are in the process of trying to acquire, etc. I think it would be better to have the wireless internet with phone, the home/business internet with phone, and the video content delivery/creation all separate stand-alone services with the option to bundle them to save money. What I believe is odd, is that customers can bundle home internet with phone and Directv to save money, or wireless internet with phone and Directv to save money, but not home internet with phone and wireless internet with phone to save money. Sure you can add these services together, but they won't provide any savings, except for specific services and features. AT&T executives often tell the press about how AT&T is in such a unique situation where they can provide these great bundles of service features to its customers. Yet there still is some disconnect in its shopping system. Also, while I realize AT&T has Cricket which is something I believe has a pretty great pricing system and service setup, while AT&T has their less expensive Unlimited Choice data plans, they also have GoPhone. At that point, its a bit much on the market for AT&T I think would be better serving customers if it were all integrated into one plan under the AT&T branding, perhaps as the new Choice plan, with the 3mbps speedcap upped to Cricket's 8mbps (or 9mbps max). Then the Plus and Choice plans could be offered in both the postpaid and prepaid options. Of course this all is my opinion and view of things regarding AT&T. You are absolutely right about T-Mobile. My mother didn't tell me exactly what kind of percentage/dollar amount the discount would be, though my she talked with someone higher-up in the Executive Response department who has access to John Legere's business email I highly suspect isn't read by John Legere directly, but rather a team of specially selected responders. These people have access to a tremendous amount of power at T-Mobile, such as wiping out an entire month or a couple months' worth of payment costs, along with sending free, totally brand new iPhones to customers, etc. These people generally are quite honest about most things relating to T-Mobile business, except for handling device preorders. My mother had received a free iPhone 6 from them meant to replace here over a decade old Samsung bar phone as a loyalty gift from T-Mobile. It helped me to not only become a temporarily major T-Mobile supporter, even forgiving them for their awful lying and screwups on my S7 preorder, but also introduced me to iOS, which if only Apple were more emulator-friendly, I would be an Apple convert. The thing that made me leave T-Mobile for AT&T shortly after that, which was after the Note 7 launch, T-Mobile messed up on my Note 7 preorder, even thought that ended up saving me from the hassle of recall returns, along with the possibility of a major fire disaster. Still, lying to me about shipment dates, etc., was not good. Ultimately I ended up back with T-Mobile some months ago with their Hookup Offer and the Two Lines for $100 with Free Lifetime HD A/V Streaming, not because of anything bad from AT&T, just because at the time AT&T didn't offer a fast enough mostly- guaranteed minimum speed for 4k streaming. Actually, I left AT&T for Verizon very temporarily, before going back to T-Mobile. I was only with Verizon for about a week, due to billing issues involving the autopay and paperless billing, a messup caused by the store employee who helped us. The credit card option may be available if a customer goes through an around way process, but not directly available through Verizon as an upfront choice. If it were available, along with Verizon being more fair on some of its device deal structures, it would be a tempting choice in switching to by the online ordering process.

Verizon has a much better deal between network quality and pricing than AT&T. A potential customer could get a smartphone line with a smartwatch line on Verizon for $95 monthly, whereas on AT&T it would cost $145, but of course AT&T offers free HBO with it. AT&T's pricing of that is ridiculous! Still, Verizon could do better in their competition with T-Mobile. Verizon ought to offer a clear, upfront way to have autopay with a credit card, as T-Mobile does. Then it would be a good thing to separate between the autopay and non-autopay options a bit more than by a $5 monthly difference. I suggest pricing the beginning rate of HD-included a/v streaming to $75 monthly with autopay/ $90 monthly without autopay. Then offer a 9mbps speedcap plan with SD a/v streaming at $45 monthly with autopay/ $60 monthly without autopay. Have additional lines be $45 monthly on the HD plan/ $15 monthly on the SD plan. I'd love to see Verizon do that as a way of getting AT&T customers to switch away and forcing AT&T to be more competitive again here in the U.S. At the moment, T-Mobile is looking more and more like Verizon's new partner in the Duopoly, and as they continue to deploy and densify, especially the 600mhz spectrum, it'll get better. I'm now mostly hoping for the Sprint merger so that they'll send John Legere off with his millions $$$ and bring someone mature and ethical on as CEO.

It still isn't the greatest here in the Chicago area either, as I've had some network drops inside deep buildings. My thought was originally just to go back with Verizon, but they have a worse autopay policy than T-Mobile, and have a really shifty payment requirement on the Moto Z temporary device I wanted with them until the V30 or Note 8 launches. AT&T won't accept membership discounts on their Unlimited Data plan any longer, only on the Mobile Share Advantage Plans, the closest to unlimited being 25gb. Plus, AT&T's network in the U.S. is losing traction in the network ratings.

What is the new TD configuration?

As info for those who've responded to me about the Digits issue, T-Mobile has been helpful in responding with a generous offer for me when the LG V30 becomes available, which is my top choice for a smartphone, so long as I get the LG 65"-inch LG C6p OLED I'm still waiting on the store I've pre-ordered to get into inventory, which may or not make it in. If it doesn't, I have plans to get a Samsung 9800 tv model from last year, which in that case I'll probably get the Note 8. Although my preference is for the LG tv and V30.

The problem with AT&T is exactly what they've created by ignoring the U.S. and going into Mexico. It has left their U.S. network to decline in quality, while T-Mobile now is regularly beating it in U.S. network ratings. T-Mobile very well could soon be the new partner in the "Duopoly" with Verizon. If Sprint were to get its network deployment and densification going strong, they could easily overtake AT&T's third place spot, leaving AT&T dead last. All the cheap Directv add-on packages and Free HBO isn't going to help a network-declining AT&T, which happens to be why I haven't yet left T-Mobile for them. The network is a huge factor, despite whatever enticing package deals there are from AT&T.

That was interesting. Although perhaps she had a customer service issue with Sprint, rather than a network-related service issue. It definitely is strange though if she really was referring to her experience from Sprint's network quality.

I really hope Sprint doesn't do this. I think it would be just as bad of an idea as when AT&T purchased in Mexico. Although I doubt Sprint would be this wasteful of money. At least Pokemon and Tidal are interests within its existing U.S. base of operations not requiring of extensive costs beyond just promotions.

Yes that is fine with me. Thanks again to those who posted here helpfully regarding the spelling and punctuation subject.

That is good advice I try to think of similarly in the style of where a period should not be, yet a pause still is necessary. One question I have is if I'm starting sentences correctly I often write, for example, "However, I think Sprint is a good carrier", or "Despite T-Mobile's popularity with John Legere in charge, I still think they could do better", are those correct comma usages? I often use commas in that format, so if that is incorrect, I'll stop that.

I forgot to edit that post. I may need to check the keyboard settings too, in case there are any automatic corrections being applied wrong. I've seen a few mistakes in some of my posts I could have sworn were not as I had written, though sometimes I have missed checking it prior to others reading the mistakes.