 | |
Um... cable?How exactly would cable industry be threatened by ATTmobile? I'd think they'd jump of joy and cheer (especially as in most areas there's exactly one cable company) the consolidation, which means they have one less company to compete with. | |
|
 | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2 |
Re: Um... cable?Probably because TMo buys backhaul from some cabelcos, and that will turn WAY down when AT&T comes in, because telcos buy from telcos.
Also, cablecos don't compete with cellular carriers. See Comcast and Sprint/Clear. Sprint is the peferred carrier for cable partnerships, but they may not be able to survive with AT&T&T. | |
|
| | | |
talz13
Member
2011-Mar-24 7:22 am
Re: Um... cable?I really like that name. I think it should be part of the merger conditions! | |
|
| | |  antdudeA Ninja Ant
VIP
join:2001-03-25
United State
kudos:5 ·Time Warner Cable
|
Re: Um... cable?said by talz13:I really like that name. I think it should be part of the merger conditions! I prefer +++ATH0 for who remember dial-up modem commands.  | |
|
| |  NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12 |
to iansltx
said by iansltx:Probably because TMo buys backhaul from some cabelcos, and that will turn WAY down when AT&T comes in, because telcos buy from telcos.
Actually, I don't think AT&T would have to buy backhaul from any telco. They'd just expand the capacity of the existing AT&T Services Tier 1 transit network, and use their own. Which would still move backhaul away from any third party provider. | |
|
| | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2 |
Re: Um... cable?How do they get from their backbone to towers in areas that are outside their wireline footprint?
Answer: transport from the ILEC in the area. | |
|
| | | | NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12 |
Re: Um... cable?Truly, the ILEC part of AT&T is an old ILEC: SBC. But AT&T Services, formerly known as, "AT&T Worldnet Services", is a Tier 1 transit network, and probably reaches through other ILEC regions. I would expect that, having all that transit capacity, they'd prefer to keep data transit "inside" as much as possible. But what does a mere peon, like me, really know? | |
|
| | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2 |
Re: Um... cable?ATTW (AS7018) is the backbone that AT&T has all of their data on. However *it doesn't get to every tower*. Therefore they use ILEC loops to get from their backbone to the tower. | |
|
| | |
Mr Bell to bugabuga
Anon
2011-Mar-23 7:03 pm
to bugabuga
What's that thingy that At&T sells called U-Verse?
Also, remind me of which corp. in the U.S. spent the most of all in lobbying? | |
|
| | |
to bugabuga
Several cable companies are behind Spectrum Co which owns a good deal of wireless spectrum. | |
|
| |
Go get'em!I know it's a snow ball chance in hell that DC will turn this down since the whole place is paid off and ATT has such a huge lobbying arm but I wish this merger would get shut down.
If NBC and Comcast can past then anything is possible. | |
|
|  S_engineer
Premium Member
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL |
Re: Go get'em!Usually in these types of mergers, the FTC would make AT&T divest something to give the appearance of a level playing field. The question is what? Unused spectrum? | |
|
| |  ·Windstream
|
Re: Go get'em!The FTC is sitting this one out. This is the response I got from them expressing my concerns about the anti-competitive nature of this proposed acquisition: The Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) have concurrent jurisdiction over many aspects of antitrust enforcement. In order to avoid duplication and maximize the effectiveness of federal antitrust enforcement, the Commission and DOJ's Antitrust Division have developed, and for many years maintained, a liaison arrangement through which we divide responsibility for antitrust review on the basis of agency expertise. Pursuant to that arrangement, we will defer to the Antitrust Division with respect to your inquiry. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Go get'em!said by LostInWoods:The FTC is sitting this one out. This is the response I got from them expressing my concerns about the anti-competitive nature of this proposed acquisition: The Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) have concurrent jurisdiction over many aspects of antitrust enforcement. In order to avoid duplication and maximize the effectiveness of federal antitrust enforcement, the Commission and DOJ's Antitrust Division have developed, and for many years maintained, a liaison arrangement through which we divide responsibility for antitrust review on the basis of agency expertise. Pursuant to that arrangement, we will defer to the Antitrust Division with respect to your inquiry. awesome thanks for posting that | |
|
| | | RiseAbove |
to S_engineer
said by S_engineer:Usually in these types of mergers, the FTC would make AT&T divest something to give the appearance of a level playing field. The question is what? Unused spectrum?
Oh I know they make promises or sell off properties like Verizon did then they disregard all of those and jack the prices up. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Go get'em!How did VZW jack up prices? When they took over Alltel Unlimited for Minutes Was 99.99 and now its 69.99. Seems to me prices dropped. They also added Family and Friends.
AT&T will be asked to give up overlapping coverage just as VZW in their purchase of Alltell.
All the people scream are ones sitting on Plans that are 5-8 years old.
If you go to T-Mo for 750 Minutes for a Family at $59.99 and $20 for Text. AT&T is $69.99 + $30 for Text and Mobile to Mobile Minutes. I get far more of a value for $20 with much more Coverage and Usage. I also get 8% off my AT&T bill make the plans near the same.
With T-Mo I pushed the 750 minute and used my phone less with AT&T its used all the time and only a 1/8th the minute usage. | |
|
 FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5 |
FFH5
Premium Member
2011-Mar-23 6:34 pm
Sprint backed the wrong horses in the House of RepLooking at "The Hill" article, they made a big deal about how Sprint backed some heavy hitting House of Representative's members(Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and that AT&T shelled out nearly $3.2 million last year, but didn't find a a dime to spend on these Dems.
Just 1 little problem - The Republicans now control all the key House committees that will look at this deal and the money Sprint gave to these Dems won't help them 1 little bit. I will look to checkout who AT&T gave money to on these key committees. I'll bet though, they gave heavily to the Republican chairs of the key communications committees. | |
|
| | FFH5 |
FFH5
Premium Member
2011-Mar-23 8:01 pm
Re: Sprint backed the wrong horses in the House of Repsaid by FFH5:Looking at "The Hill" article, they made a big deal about how Sprint backed some heavy hitting House of Representative's members(Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and that AT&T shelled out nearly $3.2 million last year, but didn't find a a dime to spend on these Dems.
Just 1 little problem - The Republicans now control all the key House committees that will look at this deal and the money Sprint gave to these Dems won't help them 1 little bit. I will look to checkout who AT&T gave money to on these key committees. I'll bet though, they gave heavily to the Republican chairs of the key communications committees.
Key House of Rep members on merger hearings & the money AT&T gave to these key members: Greg Walden(R) - Chairman of Communications subcommittee AT&T $50,000 Lee Terry(R) - Vice-chairman of Communications subcommittee AT&T $52,000 Committee on Energy and Commerce Fred Upton(R) - Chairman AT&T $94,600 Those 3 are the key players in House of Representatives in looking at the AT&T merger and Sprint is nowhere to be seen in their contributor list. | |
|
| | | |
Re: Sprint backed the wrong horses in the House of RepAnd those are only the ones that have been publicly revealed - there are probably a huge amount of "contributions" that are under the table. Most countries call this bribery, but here it's just "contributions". | |
|
| |
delusion ftl
Anon
2011-Mar-23 6:41 pm
forgotten group?What about the group of "Pretty much all of t-mobiles customers"  | |
|
| | |
sparc
Member
2011-Mar-24 12:57 am
Re: forgotten group?i don't agree at all. Without an AT&T deal, T-mobile customers would end up getting forced into a bad arrangement with a company like Sprint. Our problems as T-Mobile customers could end up being 10 times worse without AT&T.
DT has stated pretty clearly that they'd sell to whomever ponied up the cash.
More than likely my t-mobile plan will get grandfathered and i'd gain a LOT better coverage with ATT. It could end up being a win for a lot of T-mobile customers in the early years. AT&T could pull some shenanigans with pricing way down the road, but the competitive landscape could change by then anyways. | |
|
| | | |
del ftl
Anon
2011-Mar-24 1:52 am
Re: forgotten group?How did this work out for Alltel customers? When they go to get a new phone on contract from vzw, do they get to keep their old plans? | |
|
| | | | |
sparc
Member
2011-Mar-24 2:26 am
Re: forgotten group?i have no idea how the alltel merger went... if a phone upgrade would cancel your old plan, then you could always just buy a phone directly and avoid a new contract. | |
|
|  n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY |
to delusion ftl
said by delusion ftl :What about the group of "Pretty much all of t-mobiles customers" We don't matter (seriously). We are only useful as long as our account is paid in full each month. The ideal customer would be someone who pays over $100 month for all the services and never turns their phone on. Corporations do not care about us (and legally they really do not have to except for those areas mandated by law such as access to 911 and fair credit). All they have to do is increase shareholder value which this merger would do for AT&T and T-Mobile shareholders. AT&T and T-Mobile are not stupid and they timed this merger correctly. The key government people (appointees) they need to sign off on this are all in place (Obama's Chief of Staff William Daley for example). One or two resignations and it could very well be scuttled so they do need to get this moving ASAP. | |
|
Dodge
Premium Member
join:2002-11-27 |
Dodge
Premium Member
2011-Mar-23 6:43 pm
Unnamed sponsorAll of these companies are going to make noise and generally act as figureheads, but I have a feeling that behind the scenes Verizon is going to be signing checks. | |
|
| |
Do the mathI wonder if AT&T has ever calculated how much more money they could have made if they simply took the money they spend on lobbyists and instead spent that same money on supplying more customers with U-verse and their wireless network. Money they're sure to see a return of investment on.
AT&T could fire just one lobbyist and then supply my whole neighborhood with paying uverse customers. | |
|
|  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 |
morbo
Member
2011-Mar-23 8:06 pm
Re: Do the mathThey have crunched the numbers, and it's easy to buy an advantage using congress than it is to compete fairly and put those dollars toward their infrastructure. | |
|
| | |
to biochemistry
said by biochemistry:I wonder if AT&T has ever calculated how much more money they could have made if they simply took the money they spend on lobbyists and instead spent that same money on supplying more customers with U-verse and their wireless network. Money they're sure to see a return of investment on.
AT&T could fire just one lobbyist and then supply my whole neighborhood with paying uverse customers.
Numerous studies have been done on this, and all show lobbying shows the absolute greatest return on the dollar by a huge margin. | |
|
|  ·Verizon FiOS
|
to biochemistry
Lobbying is much much more cost efficient that having to hire employees and buy hardware to give customers what they want. The profit margin on lobbying is very good. Say spend a million on "bribes" and in return you get some silly USF tax "overlooked" for another year by congress. Now thats real bottom line savings you can show to shareholders, boost stock price and give the CEO a big pay increase (stock options etc). Isnt America wonderful? Why work for a wage when you can rape millions so easily with a few key bribes. | |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA ·Time Warner Cable
|
elray
Member
2011-Mar-23 7:51 pm
FehThis "broad coalition" will claim to represent consumers, then sell us out, after accepting "concessions" from AT&T, in the form of poverty-broadband and minor divestitures.
Everyone will pat themselves on the back, line their pockets, and leave the T-Mobile customer in the dust. | |
|
| |
Sprint should be happyI would think sprint wins from this deal. AT&T has such high rates that people should be running to Sprint for a change soon. | |
|
| FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5 |
FFH5
Premium Member
2011-Mar-23 8:53 pm
Re: Sprint should be happysaid by Dagda1175:I would think sprint wins from this deal. AT&T has such high rates that people should be running to Sprint for a change soon.
But the other side of that equation is that smaller companies pay more for goods & services than larger ones. So while Sprint could pick up more users with lower fees, their costs will be more to support those users. Sprint is already losing billions per year. If they don't start charging more, they will lose money at an even faster rate with more users. | |
|
 IowaCowboyIowa native
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1 |
Handset exclusivityMaybe a good condition of the merger should prohibit AT&T from entering into handset exclusivity agreements with device manufacturers and make the iPhone available to any US facilities based carrier that wants to sell it including smaller companies like Iowa Wireless, Metro PCS and US Cellular. What I mean by facilities based is incumbent carriers that own their towers and not MVNO based carriers like Tracfone or Net 10. Metro PCS recently expanded into Western Mass and Hartford Connecticut and I suspect they bought the assets of the now defunct Pocket wireless. | |
|
| dplantz
join:2000-08-02
Roslindale, MA |
dplantz
Member
2011-Mar-24 12:54 am
Re: Handset exclusivityMetro Pcs did buy out Pocket Wireless. Sprint would have a fighting chance if they were to combine with US Cellular, Metro PCS, Revol, and Leap Wireless. This would create a very strong third wireless company. Otherwise Verizon might just try to buy Sprint. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2011-Mar-23 11:07 pm
LOLLooks like it is the same groups that failed to stop every other such merger. | |
|
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
EARTH |
BiggA
Premium Member
2011-Mar-23 11:56 pm
The merger is goodThe merger is good. It will provide better coverage and capacity and it will disrupt the current duopoly. However, I really hope that they require AT&T to allow MVNOs on their network at some fixed rates, and include some level of data (1GB/sub/mo would be a great amount) so that MVNOs can enjoy the fruits of AT&T&T's monster network. | |
|
| | |
Re: The merger is goodSo the question really comes down too how long till the AT&T/Verizon merger?
If they can argue to congress that less competition=more efficiency=better prices for customers. Why stop with just T-mobile? | |
|
| | BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
EARTH |
BiggA
Premium Member
2011-Mar-24 7:52 pm
Re: The merger is goodBecause they'd have to divest most of their CLR spectrum, since it's low-band, and then that would allow someone like MetroPCS or Sprint to be a big player. So there will always be competition. | |
|
 NOCManMadMacHatter
Premium Member
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO |
NOCMan
Premium Member
2011-Mar-24 1:54 am
Horrible for JobsPost merger AT&T will lay off 5000+ workers, along with all the contracts that T-Mobile would of done on it's own not happening secondary job losses at businesses that had people working for T-Mobile will find themselves out of work as AT&T closes down redundant buildings and service centers.
So it could easily be that 15000 workers are impacted, which in turn is 15000 less cable accounts, cell phone accounts, etc etc. The merger will cost the government money in lost tax revenue from workers and from the two individual businesses.
Mergers are not pro consumer in any shape or form. We now will go from 4 national players to 3, and if it's approved you can bet Verizon will say me too and snap up sprint as well. Then you can bet AT&T will choose an incompatible LTE format from verizon's because you can go TD or FD LTE, and we end up with a de facto monopoly where you're locked into one carrier and you have to purchase a new phone if you want to switch over. So we might just kiss goodbye the thought of LTE leveling the playing field towards the European model of cell phone buying and company choices. | |
|
|
|
·
·
·
