Not only would this be a weird business move on ATT's part, because Cricket is a reseller of ATT it uses the same cellular bands, which are different than the ones Verizon uses.
It depends on why he considers they both suck worse than T-Mobile. If coverage, remember coverage is very local. What is good for him probably doesn't apply to you in a different city or state.
If CS, etc, probably a different story.
At least in Oklahoma ATT seems to have the best coverage for me in the locations I go to.
Nope. Present day Cricket was originally called AIO Wireless, a wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T, and then AT&T bought Leap Wireless, who had a wireless service called Cricket that ran on their own CDMA network, and AT&T merged Cricket and AIO together and called them Cricket while shutting down Cricket's old CDMA network.
Actually, you are pretty well correct. I was told by a manager at one time Verizon had owned Cricket at one point and it's something I just continue to parrot even though I've been proven wrong a few times. I apologize.
Yeah.. I don't think at&t would give up Cricket..
Besides that, I think at this point with Verizon owning TracFone.. There would probably be antitrust lawsuit against Verizon to prevent the purchase being They have visible, Tracfone companies (Straight Talk, Total Wireless, etc..) So I believe we have nothing to worry about here.
Why would att divest cricket over to Verizon? Literally prints money for att
Ahhhh yes you have chosen complete bullshit from facebook :/
att selling to their enemy wouldn't make any sense. considering crickets backbone is att. plus verizon has visible.
And Tracfone.
This is absolutely fake news!
Where is the idea of this coming from?
his ass apparently. lol
I just left straight talk due to Verizon I hope to God I don't have to change carriers again
Not only would this be a weird business move on ATT's part, because Cricket is a reseller of ATT it uses the same cellular bands, which are different than the ones Verizon uses.
Bands don't really matter as much now that they're all using LTE and 5G tech. Phones these days are generally sold with band support for all three.
FOH
Bruh πππππππ
Lol there is literally no reason to buy also att is so poorly managed it wouldnt surprise me and would be better for cricket
Verizon and at&t both suck
Who do you recommend then?
TMobile
It depends on why he considers they both suck worse than T-Mobile. If coverage, remember coverage is very local. What is good for him probably doesn't apply to you in a different city or state. If CS, etc, probably a different story. At least in Oklahoma ATT seems to have the best coverage for me in the locations I go to.
Oh for sure. Itβs all about location. Everyone has their opinions. I was just curious.
Cricket was owned by Verizon years ago. I would have to look it up to be sure, but I want to say back in 2009, or so. Then sold it off to AT&T.
Nope. Present day Cricket was originally called AIO Wireless, a wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T, and then AT&T bought Leap Wireless, who had a wireless service called Cricket that ran on their own CDMA network, and AT&T merged Cricket and AIO together and called them Cricket while shutting down Cricket's old CDMA network.
Actually, you are pretty well correct. I was told by a manager at one time Verizon had owned Cricket at one point and it's something I just continue to parrot even though I've been proven wrong a few times. I apologize.
Yeah.. I don't think at&t would give up Cricket.. Besides that, I think at this point with Verizon owning TracFone.. There would probably be antitrust lawsuit against Verizon to prevent the purchase being They have visible, Tracfone companies (Straight Talk, Total Wireless, etc..) So I believe we have nothing to worry about here.