AT&T just bought T Mobile USA for 36 billion ! what do you think it means to us that use tmo?? - Page 8 - maemo.org

AndyNokia232 | # 71 | 2011-03-30, 14:42 | Report

Originally Posted by gerbick View Post

I never quite understood why Nokia produced only a T-Mobile compatible version and didn't make a version that worked with the much larger AT&T.

I haven't checked (because I'm lazy) but the brand new C7 on Tmobile (the 'Astound') might not work on AT&T&T if they kill the Tmo 3G frequency. Another bright move?

Hey maybe they'll physically modify all of our phones to work on the new 4G frequency, for free! Oh, silly me, that would be the best thing to do, and here we are, talking about Nokia.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AndyNokia232 For This Useful Post:
danramos

stlpaul | # 72 | 2011-03-30, 16:01 | Report

We use hand-held windows mobile devices with modular radios (cellular/wifi/bluetooth) at work. They are as the definition of a brick. N900 is tiny compared to them.

The Following User Says Thank You to stlpaul For This Useful Post:
Mentalist Traceur

retsaw | # 73 | 2011-03-30, 16:18 | Report

Originally Posted by gerbick View Post

No **** Sherlock. I mean, there are other countries other than AMURIKA!? No WAY!

Seriously dude, the anti-American sentiment laced through these forums is rather tiresome. I've lived overseas almost as long as I've lived in the US.

I wasn't being anti-American, I was looking at the bigger picture. They only made one version of the N900, AT&T's 3G frequencies aren't a popular choice globally, whereas T-mobile's are more widely used.

Yes, Nokia do now seem to care about getting more US market share, but the N900 was never the product they intended to do that with.

Nokia's decision on which frequencies to use may suck from a US perspective, but from a business perspective they make sense.

The Following User Says Thank You to retsaw For This Useful Post:
Sopwith

AgentZ | # 74 | 2011-03-30, 16:53 | Report

Originally Posted by stlpaul View Post

AT&T Mobility has basically bought or been bought by or merged with many other companies to take over their customer base, and merged with companies who merged with other companies...

Just an incomplete list of companies that have gone away to AT&T Mobility includes:

Metromedia
McCaw Cellular
Pacific Telesis
PacBell
BellSouth
SBC
Cingular
AT&T Wireless
Cellular One
Ameritech (later sold, now Verizon)
SNET
Comcast Cellular
Dobson Celluar
Edge Wireless
Centennial Wireless
Wayport (wifi hotspot network)

And coming soon: T-mobile

So, they basically became the largest company by buying the competitors (and with them, their customers).

AT&T/Bell Labs/whatever you want to call them, did a lot of great work for UNIX, C, C++ etc. in the old days. Really invaluable work. Some of the most famous names in our field work or worked for the company.

But, for ordinary telephone customers, they've never been very friendly... AT&T had a land-line monopoly until the early 1980's when the US government broke them up. In the "bad old days" you couldn't buy your own phone and use it, you had to lease or buy the phone from AT&T. (sounds familiar...)

Almost correct,Southwestern Bell/SBC bought ATT not the other way around, ATT was a failing long distance company with some very lucrative government contracts. The powers that be figured the att brand was internationally known brand so they kept it.

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to AgentZ For This Useful Post:
Crashdamage, danramos, Mentalist Traceur, Texrat

danramos | # 75 | 2011-03-30, 17:36 | Report

Originally Posted by stlpaul View Post

We use hand-held windows mobile devices with modular radios (cellular/wifi/bluetooth) at work. They are as the definition of a brick. N900 is tiny compared to them.

Well, they ARE Windows Mobile devices. On the other hand, if Nokia had gone the way they SHOULD have gone and instead made INTERNET TABLETS (which Maemo was designed for!), it really wouldn't have been a problem. Case in point:

http://armdevices.net/2011/03/18/arc...unced-in-june/
http://liliputing.com/2011/03/archos...p-tablets.html

In this case, they're making handsets and tablets with 5" to 10" screen sizes. The smaller ones being easily pocket-sized. Had NOKIA done this, by now you COULD have had a REAL tablet with a Maemo OS and used your Bluetooth headset as your phone instead of trying to make the argument that Windows Mobile devices are too thick as evidence that modular radios in a possible NOKIA Internet Tablet are a bad idea. :P

Originally Posted by retsaw View Post

Nokia's decision on which frequencies to use may suck from a US perspective, but from a business perspective they make sense.

Yes, clearly it was an excellent business decision to dismiss the US perspective. We can clearly see how that worked out. Clearly.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to danramos For This Useful Post:
Sopwith

Crashdamage | # 76 | 2011-03-30, 18:48 | Report

Originally Posted by AgentZ View Post

Almost correct,Southwestern Bell/SBC bought ATT not the other way around, ATT was a failing long distance company with some very lucrative government contracts. The powers that be figured the att brand was internationally known brand so they kept it.

Correct. Southwestern Bell was one of the 'Baby Bells' formed when the AT&T monopoly was broken up. Later on the withered remains of AT&T was really struggling and bought by SBC mainly for the brand recognition. SBC wanted to shed the regional implications of 'Southwestern Bell' for a nationally-known name. I remember a lot of people at the time thought SBC was wasting their money. Goes to show the power a brand can have.

Last edited by Crashdamage; 2011-03-30 at 18:51.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Crashdamage For This Useful Post:
AgentZ, danramos

stlpaul | # 77 | 2011-03-30, 19:42 | Report

Yeah, I know. In fact I still have a Southwestern Bell telephone on the wall in my kitchen.

When I was a kid in the 80's there was a facility around the corner from my house with 100 or so of their unmistakable white and grey vans with the blue, white and yellow stripes.

I was just making a simple list of companies that a customer may have signed up with and now it's called AT&T. Even if in that case it was the same company just changing its own name. But corrections and clarifications are always welcome. Thanks.

scribbles | # 78 | 2011-03-30, 19:58 | Report

Originally Posted by danramos View Post

I highly suspect that this is also why Comcast cable always has problems and really, exceptionally poor HD channel quality compared to other cable companies--but somehow managed to buy up NBC.

Oh God, Comcast is horrid!! I got rid of them a few yrs ago for DirecTV. They are literally the worst and were the only cable in town so they didn't care what you thought about their service... If I could blink an eye and have something disappear, both Comcast (Xfinity cover-up) and AT&T would be gone from this world... In an instant!!

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to scribbles For This Useful Post:
danramos, jperez2009

AndyNokia232 | # 79 | 2011-03-30, 20:07 | Report

$39B is a decent chunk of change. If AT&T can spare those kind of clams, maybe they should be upgrading they're own goddam network to work properly before swallowing up a smaller (and better) network. I bet the AT&T CEO and board only get laid once a month (if that). This is how they show their underlings they've 'still got it'. Losers.

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to AndyNokia232 For This Useful Post:
danramos, jperez2009, scribbles

danramos | # 80 | 2011-03-30, 20:08 | Report

Originally Posted by scribbles View Post

Oh God, Comcast is horrid!! I got rid of them a few yrs ago for DirecTV. They are literally the worst and were the only cable in town so they didn't care what you thought about their service... If I could blink an eye and have something disappear, both Comcast (Xfinity cover-up) and AT&T would be gone from this world... In an instant!!

If they're lucky, they can manage to become "too big to fail"--great for the company, awful for consumers and citizens in general. I think Thomas Jefferson was on to something when he suggested that corporations should not be able to buy each other to form larger, more consolidated and more powerful entities.

Last edited by danramos; 2011-03-30 at 20:10.

The Following User Says Thank You to danramos For This Useful Post:
Sopwith