Comments on news posted 2011-05-10 15:02:22: AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson last month went on a softball interview tour of preferred media outlets, pouring it on rather thick in his insistence the his company's $38 billion planned acquisition of T-Mobile is pro-consumer and even patriotic, while .. ..
T-Mobile was on the block. AT&T didn't want them to go to a competitor. They had plenty of money to buy them up. So, to stop competitors from getting stronger, they bought T-Mobile. That is the reality. Now having said that, I see nothing wrong with them doing what they did.
But all the talk by AT&T execs & PR department is them trying to sell something that many are against. Their motives for buying T-Mobile isn't to help consumers. It is for AT&T stockholders - as it should be.
So take with a grain of salt all the talk about the merger being consumer friendly. That is marketing - Buyer Beware!
T-Mobile was on the block. AT&T didn't want them to go to a competitor. They had plenty of money to buy them up. So, to stop competitors from getting stronger, they bought T-Mobile. That is the reality. Now having said that, I see nothing wrong with them doing what they did.
But all the talk by AT&T execs & PR department is them trying to sell something that many are against. Their motives for buying T-Mobile isn't to help consumers. It is for AT&T stockholders - as it should be.
So take with a grain of salt all the talk about the merger being consumer friendly. That is marketing - Buyer Beware!
1. T-Mo was for sale 2. AT&T is BLEEEEEEEDING customers but has cash 3. T-Mo owns spectrum space, has strong HSPA+ deployment, and has plans for LTE deployment in the medium run. 4. AT&T has shitty "4G" and relatively poor 3G coverage.
In one swift motion AT&T expands its existing 3G coverage, adds customers (and whom were generally very loyal), adds speeds/technology much closer to "4G", and has a strong plan for "real" "4G" LTE in the future.
i don't see how this is bad for any consumer...
and the idea that a company is beholden to the customer is a joke. it's *never* been about that. for any company. ever. Companies are in business for one reason: to make money. They are not charities nor are there to serve a customer.
However, most companies find that in order to make money they need to have happy, satisfied customers who feel they are getting their money's worth. Verizon charges roughly the same money as ATT but has been adding customers pretty much every quarter for 2 years. People feel verizon's server is worth the money while AT&T's isnt. This is reason for ATT to increase their value to the customer and make them happier. This drives business and thus profits.
There is no greater motivation to please customers than making a profit, so to say that there's "excess" profit, which i hear all the time in the media, is a JOKE.
each market is different as it relates to network.
Here in Minnesota, AT&T for me throttles T-Mobile. 1. I get continuous 5-7MBPS down and 1.5-2MBPS up on my Inspire and iPhone 4. 2. When I had T-Mo I never got about 3MBPS on my G2. Coworkers have G2 & MT4G and can not touch my AT&T services. 3. T-MO 3G & "4G"(I call it 3.5G) is a fraction of AT&T here. I live 42 miles south of St. Paul and T-Mo has Edge while I get "4G" on AT&T. 4. I had repeated dropped calls with T-Mo, as for today, my two months AT&T has netted 0 Dropped calls.
Maybe I am lucky not to have issue with AT&T, but in the end my network throttles T-Mo.
As for the merger T-Mo was on the block and available to be purchased and AT&T opted to do so. In the end there was going to be one less competitor no matter how you slice and dice this. T-Mo in 24 months was not going to exist in the current form.
"Suspicion Breeds Confidence" "Trust in haste, Regret at leisure" "Don't suspect a friend, report him" "AT&T and T-Mobile merger is all about the consumer."
NOTHING a corporation does is for the benefit of a customer, except if:
- there is competition - the government actively investigates and punishes collusion agreements
By their own admission, corporations are for the benefit of the shareholders (execs in my opinion, really). Why should we believe the "benefit for the consumers" propaganda ?
By their own admission, corporations are for the benefit of the shareholders (execs in my opinion, really). Why should we believe the "benefit for the consumers" propaganda ?
Some actions by corporations, including mergers, can benefit consumers. But that isn't the main reasons for corporate actions. Happy consumers can be good for stockholders. Happy consumers consume more and bring in more revenue. So to claim corporations are anti-consumer is actually incorrect. Just don't fall for those claiming being pro consumer is what motivates a corporation's strategy. Being pro consumer can be a useful tactic however.
While nobody seems to like AT&T getting T-Mo, without AT&T's GENEROUS bid, T-Mo was at the tipping point/over the edge. »www.fiercewireless.com/s ··· urce=rss
While nobody seems to like AT&T getting T-Mo, without AT&T's GENEROUS bid, T-Mo was at the tipping point/over the edge. »www.fiercewireless.com/s ··· urce=rss
The article is rather misleading. T-Mobile is still experiencing ridiculous 25% profit margins. That's an extremely healthy company. Their problem stems from their attempts to transition from a niche, low-cost provider to a true national competitor. They've been expanding their territory rapidly and their last presentation to shareholders revealed plans to expand their network to Verizon-size.
It's true that before a couple of years ago they had serious underinvestment problems. It wasn't until recently that their parent company finally gave T-Mobile the freedom to invest their profits the way they see fit in order to maximize the health of the company.
You never cite any sources while everyone else that refutes your arguments does. So why should anyone believe you when you say that T-Mobile has 25% profit margins?
Then AT&T wouldn't be so quick to... a) cap data at 2GB with overages b) effectively get rid of all non data / txt devices (not many flip phones available any more) c) pushing 'add ons' as 'plan change' to have those on current plans end up changing plans + having to deal with proration (ends up with overage possibility)
More ways to charge - while T-Mobile had a more generous allowance + no overage 'charge'. This will not benefit a consumer.
Then AT&T wouldn't be so quick to... a) cap data at 2GB with overages b) effectively get rid of all non data / txt devices (not many flip phones available any more) c) pushing 'add ons' as 'plan change' to have those on current plans end up changing plans + having to deal with proration (ends up with overage possibility)
More ways to charge - while T-Mobile had a more generous allowance + no overage 'charge'. This will not benefit a consumer.
a) Caps are pro-consumer. They lower your entry cost; its up to you to choose how much you pay.
b) There are plenty of non-data phones available, if you bother to look.
c) add-ons and upgrades have always had catches. You don't have to opt for them.
No one has to buy a "smart" phone or sign a multi-year contract.
c) add-ons and upgrades have always had catches. You don't have to opt for them.
Unless one feature becomes an add-on or "upgrade" in the future. I can see us going backwards. Soon we'll have plans that are about equal to the plans in the 80's. You'll pay just to have the privilege of having a cell phone.. then you have to buy "addons" or "upgrades" to actually use your phone.
You sir, need to learn math. I am a heavy data user on AT&T. Thus, I SAVE $60 PER YEAR with the new plans compared to what they used to have. That's pro-consumer.
Agreed. I am a 3-4GB/month smartphone user on AT&T. Under the current plans, with a 2GB cap, this comes to $35-$45. Under the old plan, I would have to fork up $60 for 5GB and god forbid should I had actually used that 5GB and gone a little over with .05/MB($52.50/GB) overages. 5GB would be $55 under the new plans, with overages still running $10/GB. To really deflate this annoying argument 10GB, old plan. $59.99+$262.50(5*$52.50)=$321.49
10GB, new plan
$25+$80(8*10)=$105
There, I feel like some people needed the math done for them. Now it is done for them!
Except that the 5GB plan was for datacards, not smartphones. Smartphones had $30 unlimited. The point is, people don't need more than 2GB, and thus the new system saves them money.
a) Caps are pro-consumer. They lower your entry cost; its up to you to choose how much you pay.
The same troll guy who cried me over the river when I said about big blue chip companies cutting benefits to their dedicated loyal long term employes and sending them in the middle of nowhere to cut benefits or terminate their employment.
Try yourself get years of experience, college education which is not cheap and then get hired for pay that you have to live on paycheck to paycheck and live very tight on budget. Or even better, go abroad as part of firm going "global" and work in china or brazil for local wages where you would have no chance to make enough money to come back to the US.
a) Caps are pro-consumer. They lower your entry cost; its up to you to choose how much you pay.
The same troll guy who cried me over the river when I said about big blue chip companies cutting benefits to their dedicated loyal long term employes and sending them in the middle of nowhere to cut benefits or terminate their employment.
Try yourself get years of experience, college education which is not cheap and then get hired for pay that you have to live on paycheck to paycheck and live very tight on budget. Or even better, go abroad as part of firm going "global" and work in china or brazil for local wages where you would have no chance to make enough money to come back to the US.
So go cry me another river.
Blue chip companies are not required to stay in the US and give you a job with benefits, nor will they. That ain't gonna change.
So you went out and 'invested' a large sum in a not-so-worthwhile college education and built up years of experience. So what? Why would you think that entitles you to anything?
Life is not fair, and it never will be, but you are blessed, in this country, to at least have the opportunity to succeed from nothing, provided you're willing to work your butt off and take some chances.
Learn to live on a budget. That means saving for a rainy day, not living "paycheck to paycheck". If it means sleeping in your car, riding your bike to work, working 2-3 jobs, eating ramen and foregoing Wireless Broadband, "Smart" phones, Pay TV, and living four to a room ... thats what you do. Eventually, for many, your efforts and discipline will pay off many-fold.
Try investing some of your savings in companies you "hate" so much, so when they do take "your" job overseas, you reap some dividends.
Blue chip companies are not required to stay in the US and give you a job with benefits, nor will they. That ain't gonna change.
So you went out and 'invested' a large sum in a not-so-worthwhile college education and built up years of experience. So what? Why would you think that entitles you to anything?
Life is not fair, and it never will be, but you are blessed, in this country, to at least have the opportunity to succeed from nothing, provided you're willing to work your butt off and take some chances.
Learn to live on a budget. That means saving for a rainy day, not living "paycheck to paycheck". If it means sleeping in your car, riding your bike to work, working 2-3 jobs, eating ramen and foregoing Wireless Broadband, "Smart" phones, Pay TV, and living four to a room ... thats what you do. Eventually, for many, your efforts and discipline will pay off many-fold.
Try investing some of your savings in companies you "hate" so much, so when they do take "your" job overseas, you reap some dividends.
In his own words, "F**k this country! Who cares what the corporations do as long as I get more money!"
Blue chip companies are not required to stay in the US and give you a job with benefits, nor will they. That ain't gonna change.
Learn to live on a budget. That means saving for a rainy day, not living "paycheck to paycheck". If it means sleeping in your car, riding your bike to work, working 2-3 jobs, eating ramen and foregoing Wireless Broadband, "Smart" phones, Pay TV, and living four to a room ... thats what you do. Eventually, for many, your efforts and discipline will pay off many-fold.
Try investing some of your savings in companies you "hate" so much, so when they do take "your" job overseas, you reap some dividends.
In his own words, "F**k this country! Who cares what the corporations do as long as I get more money!"
Well, I'd rather the Left stop oppressing and persecuting said corporations, so they'd have incentive to stay here. But as we witness in California, daily, that isn't going to happen.
Investing in "evil" companies may be amoral, but it puts food on the table. I don't like AT&T, Verizon, Microsoft, Google, Exxon, et al, for many of their corporate acts, but they earn handsome returns over time.
Do you think all of your actions, in every aspect of your life, are harmless and just?
What would you suggest? What, should we all buy 1% CDs?
Well, I'd rather the Left stop oppressing and persecuting said corporations, so they'd have incentive to stay here...
The reasons why you have some jobs stayed is due to US Export Regulations!
Investing in "evil" companies may be amoral, but it puts food on the table. I don't like AT&T, Verizon, Microsoft, Google, Exxon, et al, for many of their corporate acts, but they earn handsome returns over time.
So investing in Enron would give me handsome returns until I knew when to pull off
Do you think all of your actions, in every aspect of your life, are harmless and just?
What would you suggest? What, should we all buy 1% CDs?
Hmm lets see
What entitles you to negotiate price before you purchase a new car?
Shouldn't u just take whatever they throw at you? Because this is what you essentially said in your posts which makes no sense.
As for your arrogant comment on education, it seems like you think we never lived through a recession. But its still no excuse for some companies to act unethically even when what they do is legal. Underemployment stinks nearly as bad as unemployment, the only difference is money comes not from your taxes but from loans, debts which eventually have taken a toll on taxpayer's money and yours. This is why we have government to protect people, not just corporations.
Also from your ignorant speech it seems like you have never been out of the US and haven't seen on your eyes what is life out there.
Wanna talk about "then why don't you get out there?" I have question for you? Why don't you get out of Cal and move to Texas or Washington if you so don't like there? Lol.
a) Caps are pro-consumer. They lower your entry cost; its up to you to choose how much you pay.
LOL. That's the most laughably transparent corporate shilling I've seen in a while on this site. You've certainly given openbox and TK a run for the money.
You're going to have to do a lot better job than that if you want to sell the merger to people with actual experience with caps.
God I'm just cracking up. That's such an embarrassingly bad argument.
a) I agree that they should have done caps that just throttled at 2GB, BUT it still makes the network faster and chops $5 off of the price of data, as well as $15 for very light users.
b) Consumers don't want dumbphones. There are still a few out there for free, and they are generally pretty good, but consumers aren't buying post-paid dumbphones.
Not only has AT&T bought and paid the fees necessary to purchase Congressional approval; there's no way the people can win when AT&T former chief lobbyist is now Obama's Chief of Staff.
I wonder, did Randall get possessed by the spirit of Baghdad Bob? He sure seems to be acting like him, saying these things with a straight face when the rest of us know he's flat out lying.
I guess it's time for our revolution when have to watch politicians bought out publicly. The only thing AT&T does decently is their stock. With so much money being in phones this is a big disappointment.
I hate how DSLReports is blatantly biased against AT&T. While they do a lot of stupid sh*t (like not roll out fiber), buying T-Mo is a good move. The combined network will have absolutely awesome HSPA+ capacity spanning both the CLR and PCS bands, the AWS spectrum is great for 4G capacity long term, and the economies of scale will be fantastic.
It also helps to bring more competition to the market, as right now outside of urban areas, there are two providers stuck in a deadlock, and this will help to break some of the deadlock and get them competing again. This, combined with Verizon's aggressive LTE rollout is all good for the consumer.
Cost savings were the bigger motivation to buy T-mobile USA
I think AT&T's motivation to buy T-mobile USA was all about cost savings. They can pick up a distressed property like T-mobile USA for practically peanuts because of the tens of billions in costs savings the deal will produce.
I don't think Sprint was much of a thought to AT&T or at best it was a very distant second to the cost savings. Does anyone really believe that Sprint could successfully integrate T-mobile USA after the failed Nextel merger? If competition were a bigger issue, I think AT&T would have let T-mobile USA get taken over by Sprint. Sprint would have ended up bankrupt at the end of that mess. That's assuming Sprint could even afford T-mobile USA. In fact the rumor was that Sprint couldn't even get a deal done because there was a lot of bickering about valuation. T-mobile USA may not have been able to even sell itself for Sprint's lowball price.
I think AT&T's motivation to buy T-mobile USA was all about cost savings. They can pick up a distressed property like T-mobile USA for practically peanuts because of the tens of billions in costs savings the deal will produce.
I don't think Sprint was much of a thought to AT&T or at best it was a very distant second to the cost savings. Does anyone really believe that Sprint could successfully integrate T-mobile USA after the failed Nextel merger? If competition were a bigger issue, I think AT&T would have let T-mobile USA get taken over by Sprint. Sprint would have ended up bankrupt at the end of that mess. That's assuming Sprint could even afford T-mobile USA. In fact the rumor was that Sprint couldn't even get a deal done because there was a lot of bickering about valuation. T-mobile USA may not have been able to even sell itself for Sprint's lowball price.
Yes, $39-billion is "peanuts".
So instead of improving their coverage and backhaul, AT&T just shows their customers they have $39 billion in cash lying around.
I think AT&T's motivation to buy T-mobile USA was all about cost savings. They can pick up a distressed property like T-mobile USA for practically peanuts because of the tens of billions in costs savings the deal will produce.
T-Mobile is valued at $16 billion. AT&T is paying $39 billion. That's close to a 150% premium! T-Mobile also has profit margins of 25%. They're a very healthy company, and AT&T's purchase is all about eliminating competition.
As customers we have competitive choices for voice Plans
But terrible choice for wireless broadband 3G/4g regardless of having 4 bigs, some regional like us cellular and few mnvo. There is no entry level data plans except for tablets, netbooks not any data Plan for less than 50. Even don't Sk me about prepaid it's pahetic. While most phones have tethering capability which costs slightly more or is free, I would wanna plans for broadband card cheaper or come with bigger caps.
There is many advantages of having USB stick or hotspot over tethering phone.
When I saw the article announcing the merger they showed both pictures of their respective CEO's .. Ive gotta say the tmo's ceo is HOT and good looking .. Att's ceo looks like a creep .. good God get a botox treatment some lasik or contacts and do something with your hair .. you look like a pedophile
Hey. I just would like you to know that you're exaggerating. In the same way that AT&T is "arrogant," as are you, in considering that this couldn't possibly benefit consumers. As a T-Mobile customer, I am excited about
-access to a much larger HSPA+ coverage area,
-earlier access to the ludicrous data speeds offered by 4G LTE, and
-a bigger network of free mobile-to-mobile calls--all of my siblings and both parents have AT&T or T-Mobile, so this merger will bring all of them into one network, and reduce the number of minutes I use.
Though I will be sorry to see the friendly spunk, consumer-oriented attitude, and (slightly) cheaper rate plans of T-Mobile go, and I am bothered somewhat about the things that a solitary GSM carrier could impose on its suppliers, I recognize that I will be joining a combined network that is in a much better position to offer me a massive coverage area (rivaling Verizon's) and improved service with fewer dropped calls and better data speeds because of bandwidth aggregation. AT&T may not have the best track record for customer satisfaction, but Deutsche Telekom will still have a hand in our management, with an estimated 8% interest in AT&T's shares. I am confident that they will do right by us as T-Mobile users, and honor our existing prices until we choose to upgrade to new phones and plans down the road. The combined company would be foolish indeed to raise their rate plans or cell phone prices higher than they already are, because VZW and Sprint/Nextel are still in a good position to keep the new carrier in check. 41% marketshare is a far cry from a monopoly. It's not even a majority. How could they be expected to engage in "anti-competitive behavior" if they don't even control more of the market than their two biggest competitors combined?
As you can see, I have done my homework. I know what's good and bad about this merger, but in spite of both, I'm looking forward to it. Perhaps the consumers and advocacy groups you claim to represent dislike this merger simply because they aren't knowledgeable enough?
"AT&T may not have the best track record for customer satisfaction, but Deutsche Telekom will still have a hand in our management, with an estimated 8% interest in AT&T's shares."
AT&T has a TERRIBLE record for customer satisfaction. Anything that removes a competitor from the picture is bad for the customer.
at&t is kinda buying itself with this TMO tomfoolery
at&t has a sizable holding with Deutch Telekom. If memory serves, at&t even gets to name a member of the board of directors. So, aren't they basically paying themselves for something?
I do admit that the 'new' at&t isn't much like the old AT&T. No! They're worse! This deal isn't about consumers! Deutch Telekom wanted to cash in, at&t didn't want anyone else to get TMO, *and* it could help some with the iPhone droppings (calls). More cells + more backhaul.
I pray the deal has MEGA conditions attached to it, if it's approved at all, but I AM capable of living within the confines of reality and I know the FCC and DOJ will probably rubberstamp this.
I KNOW! Write to your elected representatives in Congress to send at&t a message. The content of said message, "NO!" Demand that the Congress tell at&t "NO!" and while you're at it, force them to divest U-Verse & Internet Services. Spin 'em off! Spin' 'em off! WAY OFF!
An utter lie. Its all about the shareholder. The customer is just a nuisance that they have to begrudgingly deal with so they can make a quick buck to put in the pocket of the shareholders. They should be honest about this instead of lieing.
·
·
