After AT&T lost TMO, it acquired a lot of spectrum for LTE They did need more spectrum. They didn't get it from TMO merger in 1 big deal. So they got it elsewhere in many deals. Doesn't mean that they didn't need more spectrum.
To that end, this year alone AT&T has entered into 40 new spectrum deals, some already approved with others still going through the regulatory process. Its an opportunistic strategy, Stankey explains, that will situate AT&T well in the mobile market for the next two years, after that the future becomes a lot more uncertain.
Impeach Obama and tie up government for next 2 yrs
Re: After AT&T lost TMO, it acquired a lot of spectrum for LTE
said by ISurfTooMuch:It may be news to you, but T-Mobile badly wanted to get out of the US market. It's not like they were victims being taken over by an evil giant.
But what they didn't get was to remove a competitor from the market, which is what they really wanted. And not just any competitor but the only other national carrier using GSM/UMTS, which is the only place that disgruntled AT&T users could go without needing to get new phones.
So now instead, we have Germany, UK, and Japan owning/controlling a majority of our cellular market. Oh, and and Mexico/Carlos Slim, since he controls a huge chunk of the prepaid market.
Re: After AT&T lost TMO, it acquired a lot of spectrum for LTE I'm aware that DT wanted out. They felt that T-Mobile USA wasn't performing as well as they wanted. My theory is that this is a problem of their own creation, since they aren't expanding coverage into rural areas, a move that completely eliminates the possibility of getting customers outside big cities and even turns off some city residents who travel to these areas.
However, just because DT was a willing seller and AT&T was a willing buyer, that doesn't mean the deal should have been approved. The reason is that these companies are using a finite, publicly-owned resource: spectrum. They may license it, but it still belongs to us, so they have to receive approval for a deal like that.
As for Japanese, German, British, and Mexican companies owning wireless networks, what's the problem? I have no belief whatsoever that AT&T will treat me any better than them simply because it's based in this country. And, with any publicly-traded company, nationality is an illusion, since, if it's, say, Japanese, and shareholders in the U.S. end up buying a controlling interest, then it's a U.S. company.