AT&T Angry FCC Pointed Out Just How Bad T-Mobile Deal Is Jim Cicconi Upset Nobody Will Believe His Made Up Facts This Time Earlier this week the FCC issued an order that clearly laid out the reasons for the FCC's opposition to the AT&T T-Mobile deal. The full report (pdf) mirrors what we've been noting for months: AT&T's merger benefit claims are false. The deal does not create jobs, it would eliminate a disruptive price player (T-Mobile) while significantly weakening another competitor (Sprint), and is not required for AT&T to fully deploy next-gen wireless broadband. These are not opinions, these are facts pulled by AT&T's own statements to Wall Street and data leaked by AT&T's own lawyer posted here last August.  The report cherry-picks facts to support its views, and ignores facts that don’t. -AT&T's Jim Cicconi, professional fact cherry picker and fact ignorer |
As you might expect, AT&T isn't too happy that the FCC took the extra step of publishing a report clearly illustrating how nearly all of AT&T's claimed deal benefits are lies. As a result, AT&T's top lobbyist, Jim Cicconi, took to the company's blog to vent. Cicconi, whose job description undeniably involves pummeling the truth into submission whenever it threatens AT&T's revenues, slams the FCC for "cherry-picking facts to support its views" while "ignoring facts that don't." It's an odd insult and is pretty funny if you've ever heard Cicconi speak. Cicconi is a man whose company has orchestrated one of the largest disinformation efforts in recent history to get their troubled deal approved, throwing money at everyone from cattle ranching organizations to homeless shelters with the expectation they'd gleefully support a deal that will undeniably result in higher prices and less choice for consumers. Cicconi accusing anybody of factual inaccuracies is like Al Capone criticizing someone for having bad table manners. What little actual factual discussion Cicconi attempts involves repeating the same untruths AT&T's been telling everyone since they announced the deal, including that they cannot fully deploy LTE without T-Mobile: The report states, based purely on speculation, that AT&T will expand its LTE deployment from 80% of the population to 97.4% even without the merger. The report says this will occur because AT&T will be forced to do so by competition, despite documents and sworn declarations by AT&T to the contrary. To argue this, the report apparently assumes a high enough level of competition exists in rural areas to compel billions of dollars in investment. Except again, leaked documents accidentally publicized by AT&T's own attorney clearly show AT&T has the capability to expand LTE to 97% of the nation -- they just don't want to pay for it. The document shows AT&T marketing repeatedly requested that AT&T match Verizon's 97% LTE coverage, lest they be beaten up in national ads again (recall the Luke Wilson affair). AT&T refused, and just as with U-Verse versus FTTH, chose to cut corners on investment. It's AT&T's prerogative to put investors before network health, but it's a lie to suggest they lack the funds, spectrum or resources to do it. For AT&T to insist anybody is stretching the truth after months of lying is comical. AT&T told regulators the T-Mobile deal would increase investment, yet is on the record telling Wall Street the deal will cut investment by $8 million. AT&T and the CWA told regulators the deal would create 100,000 jobs, yet the author of the very study they cite says his study claims no such thing. Still, Cicconi stalwartly pushes forth with the assertion that AT&T T-Mobile will be good for U.S. jobs: Commitment that the merger will not result in any job losses for U.S.-based wireless call center employees of T-Mobile or AT&T who are on the payroll when the merger closes; Commitment to bring 5,000 wireless call center jobs back to the U.S. that today are outsourced to other countries; Commitment that T-Mobile’s non-management employees whose job functions are no longer required because of the merger will be offered another position in the combined company. The 5,000 low-level call center jobs AT&T is bringing back to the states aren't new jobs, they're simply shuffled. AT&T claims this is a concession they're making because of the deal, but an insider told Broadband Reports it's actually something they planned to do anyway as an oveseas contract expired. As for AT&T claiming they won't fire call center employees and will re-assign redundant workers, you can look to decades of similar deals to find data on just how well those promises work out. One point where Cicconi is not wrong is in his criticism of the FCC's own hypocritical job claims. The FCC recently crowed that their new USF reform plan would create 500,000 new jobs, a claim that's more than a little laughable if you've tracked USF dysfunction over the years (though Cicconi may not want to complain too loudly, since this "reform" primarily involves new subsidies for AT&T that involve the company doing little to nothing). Granted this doesn't somehow magically make the FCC's report wrong, and it's certainly not news that both career politicians and lobbyists aren't exactly poster children when it comes to truth telling. There's plenty of debates in telecom where you'll find fuzzy areas of debate where the truth can often get murky. Whether or not AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile is a bad deal for consumers (and whether AT&T is lying about it) is not one of them. As AT&T's deal starts to circle the drain, it's sad that their top lobbyist is resorting to hypocritical barbs and repetition of lies to salvage the deal. It's time to put this particularly stinky baby to bed before what remains of AT&T's credibility among consumers is completely lost.
|
 | | I love his title in the block quote quote:
AT&T's Jim Cicconi, professional data cherry picker and fact ignorer
| |
|  | | | Re: I love his title in the block quote some that "write" for this website do the same. | |
| | | | | Re: I love his title in the block quote The enemy of my enemy is my friend. | |
|
 HarleyYacYacoPremium
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ
kudos:2 | FCC Those evil government officials.... unbelievable!!! | |
| | | Karl although I love your commentary.. You always write one-sided stories.
In your dramas all telcos are evil and everyone else is working for the better good of the people.
The FCC report was actually just a draft and full of conjecture. I'm not sure why the FCC even published a "draft," since it was not a full report nor was it even voted upon.
There are always 2 sides to each story. Both the FCC and AT&T stories have holes but only one side is pointed out.
I have no confidence in the FCC They are politically motivated, just like the phone companies and are more interested in getting re-elected then serving the public good.
T-Mobile has been losing customers for over 2 years. Tell me how they are such a competitive disruptive force in our industry?
DT has no plans to pour the billions and billions in capital required to build out a nationwide LTE network for T-Mobile much less fill in all their GPRS only areas with HSPA +. How is a company like this in any good shape to operate competitively on its own?
The FCC themselves have stated the "dire needs," of spectrum needed by wireless telcos like AT&T yet in the same draft they claim they have "more than enough." Total discrepancy here.
Again all the "what if's," and "what not's," are all conjecture on anyone's part. You can hate AT&T and everything associated with them but the statements made by the FCC don't add up either and people will continue to believe only what they want to regardless of merit or facts. | |
| | HarleyYacYacoPremium
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Optimum Online
| Re: Karl although I love your commentary.. Here Here!! lets end all regulation and government meddling!!!
The corporations will take care of us all!! We can trust them!!
::not::
--
My opinion on religion and science? Science builds airplanes. Religion flies them into buildings. | |
| | etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1 | said by verizon12345 :You always write one-sided stories.
In your dramas all telcos are evil and everyone else is working for the better good of the people.
The FCC report was actually just a draft and full of conjecture. I'm not sure why the FCC even published a "draft," since it was not a full report nor was it even voted upon.
There are always 2 sides to each story. Both the FCC and AT&T stories have holes but only one side is pointed out.
I have no confidence in the FCC They are politically motivated, just like the phone companies and are more interested in getting re-elected then serving the public good.
T-Mobile has been losing customers for over 2 years. Tell me how they are such a competitive disruptive force in our industry?
DT has no plans to pour the billions and billions in capital required to build out a nationwide LTE network for T-Mobile much less fill in all their GPRS only areas with HSPA +. How is a company like this in any good shape to operate competitively on its own?
The FCC themselves have stated the "dire needs," of spectrum needed by wireless telcos like AT&T yet in the same draft they claim they have "more than enough." Total discrepancy here.
Again all the "what if's," and "what not's," are all conjecture on anyone's part. You can hate AT&T and everything associated with them but the statements made by the FCC don't add up either and people will continue to believe only what they want to regardless of merit or facts.
The FCC report just reasserts what we (consumers) have experienced for years and decades.
- 1. That at&t are thieves.
- 2. That at&t will destroy US jobs after and before the merger.
- 3. That at&t are parasites seeking special treatment from the government.
- 4. That at&t lied about the merger and continue to lie.
- 5. That at&t is too lazy and short sighted to build a competitive wireless network by themselves.
| |
| | | Reviews:
 ·AT&T (Business S..
 ·Verizon Wireless..
| Re: Karl although I love your commentary.. said by etaadmin:
- 1. That at&t are thieves.
- 2. That at&t will destroy US jobs after and before the merger.
- 3. That at&t are parasites seeking special treatment from the government.
- 4. That at&t lied about the merger and continue to lie.
- 5. That at&t is too lazy and short sighted to build a competitive wireless network by themselves.
+1 I worked for AT&T, and while I have nothing against them, and still to this day do promote and sell their products. I will say that their labor practices HR department is a JOKE. They have a history of settlements and lawsuits against violating employee's labor rights. They use cry babies like Mr. Jim Cicconi to peddle BS for them, which even AT&T's own company executive management have reputedly publically come out and contradict! Well, if they invested in their network, trained their employee's properly, actually knew what they where doing, then maybe.. But they simply don't! Worse yet the company is LAZY and the vast amount of their employee's I worked with where LAZY and could not read or write. Even simple legal matters related to how services are installed, the people they put in charge, where illiterate, and just wasted everyone's time..
Heck I got a call from one of their Datacenter group a couple years ago –trying to pitch services to me and on behalf of the clients I represent. And… The guy had no clue and he was in charge of selling services. He claimed they where a “SAS70” datacenter. Except, I really could care less about it, since it’s a check list and it stops there, especially since AT&T looses SSN# and their own management records constantly. So clearly they have no clue on how to protect PII data. Especially, since just about anyone can walk into their facilities without even the cursory glance. Steal a laptop, pop their limited laptop security in 5 seconds and have a treasure trove of financial info due to their ‘lack of STRONG encryption’ and proper security protocol training and enforcement. But getting back to the story, their own rep- couldn’t even tell me what “SAS70 was after I was on the phone for 30 minutes” I mean damn, at least use Google to pull up a definition… Just WoW!
References: »www.networkworld.com/community/node/28453
»www.internetnews.com/bus-news/ar···/3629236. | |
|
| | | Karl does a great job.
This is one of the few times that the FCC was 100% right.
Tmobile, has been cash positive for over the past 2 years. Having a 4th provider will drive prices down and keep verizon and att in check.
Tmobile can easily have a 4G path, they could use the same multi mode antenna's Sprint will and start converting there PCS, and AWS over to LTE over time.
Easy.
Also spectrum wise ATT in most of the largest markets use less than 50% of there spectrum. ATT is like a warehouse.
Also, with providers like LS,Dish,Clearwire there is NO need for ATT or Tmobile to say they need specturm so so bad.
But all in all you are clearly an ATT employee . | |
| | | RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN | Re: Karl although I love your commentary.. said by rlharris02:But all in all you are clearly an ATT employee .
The only thing that's clear is he is able to see that there are shades of grey in this world and often there's more than one side to an argument.
Unlike many (most?) posters in this forum. And the author of this editorial. | |
|
| ncbillPremium
join:2007-01-23
Winston Salem, NC | 3Q2011 results for T-Mobile (connections):
33,711,000 total 126,000 net adds | |
| |  fuziwuziNot born yesterdayPremium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA | The only response worthwhile to your diatribe is: bullsh**.
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1 | |
| | | | Any disclosures you'd like to make about who you work for? | |
| | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| Yup, pretty much. What really annoys me is that they are trying to block this pro-consumer acquisition, and yet they won't take pro-consumer actions against the wireless carriers, like with overages, international roaming, unlocking devices, contracts, etc, etc. The FCC should use this opportunity to say YES, BUT to AT&T, with the BUT being a series of pro-consumer protections around overages, contracts, phone locking, international roaming, tethering, etc, etc. | |
| | | | | Re: Karl although I love your commentary.. said by BiggA:Yup, pretty much. What really annoys me is that they are trying to block this pro-consumer acquisition...
SBC "pro-consumer?" HAHAHAHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Pull the other one. It's got bells on.
That's pretty funny.
Jim | |
| | | | Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·Mediacom
·T-Mobile US
| Re: Karl although I love your commentary.. The old AT&T that was regulated by government was indeed procpnsumer. They had bell labs That invented and earned good reputation. Today AT&T is simply sbc with AT&T name on it and they are not as same as the old AT&T before divesture by doj in 1986. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Karl although I love your commentary.. said by chgo_man99:The old AT&T that was regulated by government was indeed procpnsumer. They had bell labs That invented and earned good reputation. No question. Western Electric, too. Used to make telephones that i swear would probably have survived a nuclear holocaust. (I still have one or two--one even with a dial, I think--around.)
said by chgo_man99:Today AT&T is simply sbc with AT&T name on it and they are not as same as the old AT&T before divesture by doj in 1986.
Funny thing is: I think they figured that, by renaming themselves, they'd escape their past. I guess it never occurred to them that if they kept behaving like SBC, it wouldn't matter what they named themselves, people would still dislike them.
I remember when I heard SBC had obtained AT&T. We had AT&T local and long distance, and AT&T T1s. I wrote our TelCom consultant "I got a bad feeling about this." Sure enough: They have met my worst expectations. Things started going south w/in about a year after SBC obtained AT&T, and have gone basically downhill ever since.
Jim | |
|
| | | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | Overall, they aren't that great, unless you compare them to Verizon, but this move is pro-consumer, as it will create a efficiency on a much larger scale and disrupt the duopoly that currently rules wireless with an iron fist. | |
| | | | | fuziwuziNot born yesterdayPremium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA | Re: Karl although I love your commentary.. said by BiggA:...but this move is pro-consumer, as it will create a efficiency on a much larger scale...
No.
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1 | |
| | | | | | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | Re: Karl although I love your commentary.. Yes it is. | |
| | | | | | | fuziwuziNot born yesterdayPremium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA | Re: Karl although I love your commentary.. No, it is not. Though it is your favorite tactic, repeating a lie over and over does not magically make it so.
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1 | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Karl although I love your commentary.. said by fuziwuzi:Though it is your favorite tactic, repeating a lie over and over does not magically make it so.
That's pretty funny, coming from a guy who's got a tagline that says "Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1". How often have you repeated that lie? | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Karl although I love your commentary.. said by footballdude:said by fuziwuzi:Though it is your favorite tactic, repeating a lie over and over does not magically make it so.
That's pretty funny, coming from a guy who's got a tagline that says "Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1". How often have you repeated that lie? That's not a lie. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Karl although I love your commentary.. Agreed. Any movement that the basis is "ME ME ME ME ME; anyone else - meh, who cares" is destructive.
Although I will agree with them that we need to reduce gov spending in areas. | |
|
| | | | | | What a joke, higher prices, less choices.
Pro Consumer, what a JOKE
Efficencies for a company merger means job losses as well as the venders will be hurt as well. | |
|
|  jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | said by verizon12345 :I have no confidence in the FCC They are politically motivated, just like the phone companies and are more interested in getting re-elected then serving the public good. Uh, the FCC is not elected. They're appointed, and with many FCC folks going on to work in the industry, how is this critical report going to help their future job prospects?
--
If they told you wolverines make good house pets, would you believe them? | |
| | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | I always read Karl's long articles as editorials. I can usually count on getting a good opposing view editorial in the comments.
Your username is kind of funny, aren't verizon and charter competitors? | |
| |  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | said by verizon12345 :You always write one-sided stories. He very much does.
In your dramas all telcos are evil and everyone else is working for the better good of the people.
The FCC report was actually just a draft and full of conjecture. I'm not sure why the FCC even published a "draft," since it was not a full report nor was it even voted upon.
There are always 2 sides to each story. Both the FCC and AT&T stories have holes but only one side is pointed out.
I have no confidence in the FCC They are politically motivated, just like the phone companies and are more interested in getting re-elected then serving the public good.
T-Mobile has been losing customers for over 2 years. Tell me how they are such a competitive disruptive force in our industry?
Again, the only reason you're seeing faster data speeds on ATT now than what you saw 2 years ago is because of T-Mobile's successful HSPA+ deployments that raised expectations for what a '3g' network is capable of.
This was Spring of this year:
DT has no plans to pour the billions and billions in capital required to build out a nationwide LTE network for T-Mobile much less fill in all their GPRS only areas with HSPA +. How is a company like this in any good shape to operate competitively on its own?
1. While this whole buy-out business was going on, T-Mobile has continued to see investment.
See: 42mbps HSPA+ deployments, 49.95 Unlimited Everything Plan introduced, etc. etc. etc.
2. GPRS areas will eventually be upgraded to HSPA+ - this was already layed out in T-Mobile's business plan. In fact, upgrading those areas to HSPA+ is deemed very important to T-Mobile, as they want to re-farm their 1900mhz network for LTE/further HSPA+ deployment.
See:
The FCC themselves have stated the "dire needs," of spectrum needed by wireless telcos like AT&T yet in the same draft they claim they have "more than enough." Total discrepancy here.
For FUTURE growth, a LOT more spectrum is necessary. Eventually the desire is that Cellular internet will compete directly with landline internet (cable/dsl/fiber). But there simply isn't enough spectrum to dedicate right now to making this possible nationwide. So when the FCC speaks to CONGRESS, they inform them that for the FUTURE, there isn't enough spectrum based upon current growth models.
But as far as ATT is concerned, they're just sitting on spectrum that they're already supposed to be using. And while small players like T-Mobile, Leap, and Metro are fighting for spectrum ATT is letting it sit unallocated for years.
Put differently: If other carriers (say, T-Mobile) had the spectrum that ATT is simply sitting on, they'd be able to have an LTE plan without having to refarm their old networks.
ATT is trying to have its cake, and eat it too. They're sitting on spectrum so that their competitors can't use it. Then they're telling the world that they should gobble up their competitors because obviously there isn't enough spectrum to go around.
Again all the "what if's," and "what not's," are all conjecture on anyone's part. You can hate AT&T and everything associated with them but the statements made by the FCC don't add up either and people will continue to believe only what they want to regardless of merit or facts.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
| | | | Why did AT&T back out of the hearing if they had all the evidence they needed to easily disprove these 'conjectures'?
You can't not go to trial, argue you could've easily won, and then subsequently blame the other side for over-reach; you've had your ample chance. You're only loosing credibility now. | |
| | Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| said by verizon12345 :T-Mobile has been losing customers for over 2 years. Tell me how they are such a competitive disruptive force in our industry? Cheapest post-paid plan:
Verizon/AT&T 450 minute plan: $39.99/mo + fees
T-Mobile 500 minute plan: $39.99/mo + fees
Cheapest Unlimited talk/text plan:
Verizon/AT&T: $90/mo
T-Mobile: $60/mo
Cheaper rate plans available if you bring your own hardware:
AT&T/Verizon: No
T-Mobile: Yes
Seems relatively disruptive to me....
said by verizon12345 :DT has no plans to pour the billions and billions in capital required to build out a nationwide LTE network for T-Mobile much less fill in all their GPRS only areas with HSPA +. How is a company like this in any good shape to operate competitively on its own? I have no idea what DT/T-Mobile are going to do with regards to 4G data networks. I do know they are a very competitive option for people who only need voice. I do know if you live in one of their upgraded areas they are a very competitive option for people who use data.
said by verizon12345 :The FCC themselves have stated the "dire needs," of spectrum needed by wireless telcos like AT&T yet in the same draft they claim they have "more than enough." Total discrepancy here. Then why didn't AT&T just try to buy some of that spectrum that T-Mobile supposedly isn't going to build out? Could have done that for a lot less than $39,000,000,000. Of course that wouldn't have eliminated the sole remaining nationwide carrier that doesn't match AT&T and Verizon's pricing, would it? | |
| | | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Karl although I love your commentary.. Actually, Virgin and Boost are the most price-disruptive, and they are run by Sprint. However, Boost, Virgin, T-Mobile, Metro, etc don't compete with AT&T and Verizon. They compete with each other. T-Mobile could be half the price and it wouldn't matter, those of us who actually need a phone that works more than 5 feet off of the freeway will always go with one of the big players (or USCC who has world-class coverage in their areas and a roaming agreement with big red).
Allowing the merger throws this duopoly out of balance and could be better for the consumer. At minimum, it doesn't hurt, as T-Mobile can't compete with 4G networks anyways, and there isn't enough room for that many players. Other new players are popping up like Metro and Leap, so they can serve the bottom-scrapers. | |
| | | |
See 16 replies to this post |
| | | All telco and cable co's ARE evil. | |
|
| | ATT really does't give a cap Most companies when being looked at by government agency tend to not want to pick a fight but ATT does the opposite and goes nuclear with this letter. That just shows you that ATT holds the FCC in very low regard and believes it will prevail in the end. | |
| |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: ATT really does't give a cap said by AndyDufresne:Most companies when being looked at by government agency tend to not want to pick a fight but ATT does the opposite and goes nuclear with this letter. That just shows you that ATT holds the FCC in very low regard and believes it will prevail in the end.
And if AT&T manages to get their Plan B past the DOJ, the FCC will become irrelevant once again.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/rss/2012-election-blog.xml
| |
| | | | | Re: ATT really does't give a cap TK Junkmail, you never seem to fail to illustrate your lack of understanding of how the government, economics, indeed, the world itself works.
Everyone in DC is stunned at how nuclear AT&T went, and agree that it is pretty much a sign that they have no expectations to get this deal done.
AT&T won't get any plan B past DOJ (Clayton and Sherman Acts both cover joint-ventures), but if they do, FCC gets the final say, and they have a very different standard than the DOJ. If you actually read the staff report, you'll see that 95% of what AT&T claimed was actually unsupported by their own internal documents, especially all the discussion of an AT&T-specific spectrum crisis. Now that AT&T has chosen to piss off the FCC Chairman and the career staffers, they have even less chance of persuading them.
The deal was always a win-win calculated risk for AT&T. They won't get T-Mobile now, but will have tied them up and weakened them and Sprint even further. | |
| | | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: ATT really does't give a cap said by Bill Dollar:AT&T won't get any plan B past DOJ (Clayton and Sherman Acts both cover joint-ventures), but if they do, FCC gets the final say, and they have a very different standard than the DOJ.
We'll see. And if the DOJ signs off on a deal, that paper tiger Genachowski will do what the DOJ & WH tells him to do. | |
|
| | Waaa Waaa, Crybaby AT&T I also agree that comments made by etaadmin, along with his address being in Dallas, TX (AT&T Wireless Hdqtrs) can confirm our suspicions that he's possibly related to AT&T in some shape or form. | |
| | | | Re: Waaa Waaa, Crybaby AT&T ATT Mobility is NOT in Dallas. You may want to try Atlanta. | |
| | etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1 | said by F_Off_ATnT:I also agree that comments made by etaadmin, along with his address being in Dallas, TX (AT&T Wireless Hdqtrs) can confirm our suspicions that he's possibly related to AT&T in some shape or form.
BTW I didn't make those comments that you are referring to verizon12345 did  | |
| |  ThespisI'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.Premium
join:2004-08-03
Keller, TX | said by F_Off_ATnT:I also agree that comments made by etaadmin, along with his address being in Dallas, TX (AT&T Wireless Hdqtrs) can confirm our suspicions that he's possibly related to AT&T in some shape or form.
Yeah, because AT&T employs all 6,371,773 of us living in the DFW metroplex...
--
Fast. Cheap. Safe.
Pick two... | |
|
| | LIAR LIAR Jim Cicconi is a piece-a-shit. | |
|  60127178K.U. Sweet 16Premium
join:2001-02-15
Wichita, KS
kudos:1 | 5,000 Jobs "Commitment that the merger will not result in any job losses for U.S.-based wireless call center employees of T-Mobile or AT&T who are on the payroll when the merger closes; Commitment to bring 5,000 wireless call center jobs back to the U.S. that today are outsourced to other countries"
These are not *new* jobs. These will be the conversion US Tmo CSR's who are selected to stay on with the "New AT&Tmobile".
If AT&T was really in interested in creating jobs they would open several new call centers and pay to train these replacement CSR's whether or not the Tmo merger goes through. *insert ROFL .gif here* | |
| | | Too much BS from Karl Karl stop your whining and analyze things from a more intellectual perspective.
Your writing is childish.
If you were a bit more objective in the beginning and then posted your own thoughts near the end of the piece, it would make for a better read but having to hear you insult or whine about everything in every paragraph is so obnoxious.
If BBR pays you for this stuff, they should stop doing so now, and hire a journalist instead of a blogger. | |
| | | | Re: Too much BS from Karl said by komal:Karl stop your whining and analyze things from a more intellectual perspective.
Your writing is childish.
If you were a bit more objective in the beginning and then posted your own thoughts near the end of the piece, it would make for a better read but having to hear you insult or whine about everything in every paragraph is so obnoxious.
If BBR pays you for this stuff, they should stop doing so now, and hire a journalist instead of a blogger.
Say Komal! Why don't you just stop reading Karl's posts and save some space for people who have something more profound to say about Karl's analyses and opinions? You sound like a Cicconi sidekick from sour grapes AT&T.
Any telecom lawyer other than Cicconi and his minions would tell you that AT&T completely bungled its attempt to get this merger through via its arrogant attitude toward regulators, and the ham-handed attempts to convince everyone of its so-called, but truly laughable "facts" and "job growth projections."
Come on, admit it! | |
| | | | | Re: Too much BS from Karl said by TelecomMaven:said by komal:Karl stop your whining and analyze things from a more intellectual perspective.
Your writing is childish.
If you were a bit more objective in the beginning and then posted your own thoughts near the end of the piece, it would make for a better read but having to hear you insult or whine about everything in every paragraph is so obnoxious.
If BBR pays you for this stuff, they should stop doing so now, and hire a journalist instead of a blogger.
Say Komal! Why don't you just stop reading Karl's posts and save some space for people who have something more profound to say about Karl's analyses and opinions? You sound like a Cicconi sidekick from sour grapes AT&T. Any telecom lawyer other than Cicconi and his minions would tell you that AT&T completely bungled its attempt to get this merger through via its arrogant attitude toward regulators, and the ham-handed attempts to convince everyone of its so-called, but truly laughable "facts" and "job growth projections." Come on, admit it! Your first couple of lines are very funny because the very same thing could be said about your reply. If you don't like it, don't read it and don't reply to it. But you're a hypocrite so I'll take your future ramblings less seriously.
And you must not have been able to comprehend my post or you'd notice I never even touched on or discussed the AT&T issue.
I was discussing the (lack of) quality of the writing. Amusingly, you accuse me of being an AT&T sidekick when again, I never touched on that topic, which only makes you sound like a Karl sidekick.
Maybe after you've been around for longer than a year, you can post a response instead of rambling on. | |
|
| | weakening another competitor (Sprint) If people who were formerly t-mobile customers left the new merged company in large numbers, who is to say they wouldn't go to Sprint rather than Verizon? Sprint is the last big company to offer unlimited data. I think it would be a deal they'd like to see go through! | |
| | | att arb I want my 10k att
»na06.mypinpointe.com/display.php···4&N=3962
The FCC order and staff report agree with every argument we have made against the merger, and reject every argument AT&T has made in favor of the merger.
If you are interested in reading the FCC Order yourself, we've posted it at www.FightTheMerger.com/fcc_order.
It is unclear how the FCC's ruling will affect our pending arbitrations and court cases. Approximately 1,200 of our arbitration cases are still pending, and we intend to continue to press forward with those.
--
Lakewood Accountability Action Group | »www.LAAG.us | Demanding action and accountability from local government
| |
|  n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY | It Makes For A Good Read Took me some time to read through the entire FCC document. There are so many footnotes that it takes a while to skip through it. The most annoying thing is all the redacted information. Most of it I could care less about but section 196 on page 85 and section 203 on page 87 discuss the planned shutdown dates of GSM and those dates are redacted. I wonder why they are so sensitive.
BTW, there appears to be an error in the BBR article:
AT&T told regulators the T-Mobile deal would increase investment, yet is on the record telling Wall Street the deal will cut investment by $8 million. Shouldn't that be $8 BILLION?
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
| | | FCC public investment jobs claim "One point where Cicconi is not wrong is in his criticism of the FCC's own hypocritical job claims. The FCC recently crowed that their new USF reform plan would create 500,000 new jobs..."
Karl, the FCC does not hypocritically conclude that public investment in broadband creates jobs but private investment does not. That is just Jim Cicconi's self serving distortion of the FCC's reasoning.
Instead, the FCC and AT&T are actually on the same page that investment in broadband will spur job growth. (The veracity of that claim for both the FCC and AT&T is a topic for another time.) But the FCC rightly concludes that any job creation that would occur from AT&T LTE broadband deployment would not be exclusive to approval of the AT&T-T-Mobile merger.
This is an excerpt from what I wrote in another forum:
"Deployment of 4G LTE to 97 percent of the population might create the direct/indirect job years that AT&T projects. I will give AT&T that. Nevertheless, those jobs are not a merger specific benefit. The numbers do not lie -- AT&T already has the spectrum, infrastructure, and finances to achieve the same level of 4G LTE deployment and supposedly concomitant job creation on its own."
In a nutshell, because AT&T can (and probably will) accomplish 97 percent LTE deployment without T-Mobile, any job growth that would result from that LTE deployment is not attributable as a public interest benefit of the merger.
AJ | |
| | | | Re: FCC public investment jobs claim This ^ x2. Ciccone's argument is complete garbage. | |
|
| | DSL Reports Need Unbiased Reporting I love how every one of the "news" posts on this site completely have a slant. Whatever happened to unbiased news reporting? | |
| | Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL | Re: DSL Reports Need Unbiased Reporting Go do some history checking. There has not been one large merger in the past 40 years that has;
1. Keep all the employees between both companies.
2. Reduced costs to the customer.
3. Provided customers with more choices.
4. Benefited anyone but the buying corporation.
There might be one exception over that time but I cannot think of any. | |
| | | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: DSL Reports Need Unbiased Reporting While those facts may be true, its also:
1. A US based company purchasing the assets of a foreign owned company (DTelecom).
2. DT has already stated that they want to pull out of the US.
AT&T probably should have let T-Mobile, its customers, employees, and everything it has drop in value (contributing to the already bad economy), and pick over the bones of T-Mobile after it is worth less that it is (and was).
- Sprint can't afford T-Mobile
- VZW could but probably wouldn't want or need to (have to convert all those GSM/HSPA+ subs to CDMA / LTE)
- Regionals couldn't afford it.
This leaves the following options:
1. T-Mobile gets its 'bailout' from AT&T failure as well as spectrum, and becomes a regional/urban only carrier similar to Metro PCS/
2. T-Mobile / AT&T will become a 'big' company (kinda like how VZW is Verizon + Vodafone). | |
| | | |  rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY | Re: DSL Reports Need Unbiased Reporting Or a dark horse, an Apple or a Google or Facebook buys it. Could happen.. | |
|
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | I think your view on mergers is pretty off base.
Jobs are naturally lost during a merger - that's a given.
Prices aren't necessarily always going up JUST because of the merger.
Choice? ... ever since Comcast and Time Warner have consolidated and merged with other smaller systems into a larger entity, I've had FAR more choices in services. And, as of today, there are many companies out there providing even more options.
I'm sorry, but can't agree with you in general on your post. There's not just one exception either. Those who are anti-corporation are always going to share your view. Just because a corporation does something doesn't mean it's evil. Some people just can't agree with anything a corporation does yet they continue to benefit from these mergers, whether they see it or not.
Not all mergers are good and I'm NO fan of this AT&T crap.. but your post and view is way off base. | |
|
| etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1 | said by ianmichael:I love how every one of the "news" posts on this site completely have a slant. Whatever happened to unbiased news reporting?
Look at the top of BBR's initial page it says:
Note: We're able to pay for good user-contributed content
any takers?
BTW I think Karl and the FCC is 100 accurate in this issue. | |
|
Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL | Cry Babies - Mr. Cicconi put big boy pants on. I don't know why AT&T is so upset. Nearly everyone has known for decades the claptrap these corporations has tried to make us believe was bullshit. AT&T is just upset now that a Federal organization has finally agreed with the rest of us. | |
| | | Off-shoring money While I never felt that it was truly necessary to "buy American", the money that subscribers of T-Mobile pay for wireless service is, in part, going to Germany (DT). Would not the merger of AT&T Mobility and T-Mobile stop the money that T-Mobile sends to its parent company, and divert that cash back to AT&T Mobility, effectively making former T-Mobile customers "buying American"? How much of that cash would either be re-invested by AT&T, or written off on short term charges for the purchase of T-Mobile? I'm sure this is a naive understanding of how things really work. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
slckusrPremium
join:2003-03-17
Maumee, OH
kudos:1 | Whoda thunk Corporations really are like people. Poor ATT stomping their feet and pouting because they didn't like what they got told\didn't get what they wanted. | |
| | | Looks like the FCC fired back over ATT's Tantrum FCC Tells AT&T They Are “Deeply Concerned” Over Todays Statement
»www.tmonews.com/2011/12/fcc-tell···atement/
Today has turned into quite the war of words in the aftermath of AT&T’s request to withdraw their T-Mobile purchase application. This morning was quite lively as AT&T posted an angrily worded response to the release of the FCC Staff Report which contradicts a number of the points AT&T has made about their T-Mobile purchase. To say that AT&T was angry, upset and in need of a timeout would be about right.
As the FCC is a government-run body we would expect that they wouldn’t take AT&T’s bait and respond. Well the FCC isn’t taking todays AT&T response sitting down as a quick Tweet by the Commissions Chief of Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau tweeted that they are “Deeply concerned about AT&T’s J. Cicconi comments regarding the FCC’s role in protecting US consumers.”
I think it’s safe to say that AT&T will likely run into an even tougher time when and if they attempt to achieve FCC approval down the road. The notion that the FCC used social media to “scold” AT&T is telling.
AT&T Insert Foot In Mouth  | |
| | | Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. Jim Cicconi or Dr. Strangelove?
AJ | |
| | | Wait. Karl likes the FCC? Since when did Karl always portray the FCC as proconsumer or good? Sure, telco's are evil - except all the stories praising Verizon for actually investing in their network. FCC is good, except for all those stories criticizing and condemning the FCC over lukewarm action or being to cozy with the companies they are regulating.
There is definite bias to Karl's work. Most news agencies have bias - his is very proconsumer with little regard for the companies or large organizations. However, claiming that he hates all telecom companies or loves the FCC unreservedly is just false. | |
|
1 edit | The bigger AT&T picture People often see the public fights but miss the politics behind what is causing it.
The main reason this is happening is because Comcast quite frankly pooped a big one in AT&T's Wheaties.
Washington is a VERY much a pay to play government. Only those with the most money get elected and those with the most money to lobby can push their legislation through. Karl knows this all to well and was even expecting early on for the FCC to hand over T-mobile with a bow and wrapping paper paid by taxpayers. Congress even though they support payee legislation (on the unspoken side) still DEMAND these dealings be kept out of the public eye to not create political backlash.
When Comcast bribed FCC commissioner Meredith Attwell (approved Comcast/NBC merger to dump a job at the FCC for a multimillion dollar job lobbing Congress for Comcast interests) there was a big public backlash. Congress who hate to have their money dealings public got flooded with discovery subpoenas from watchdog firms and journalists. Some of these investigations are still ongoing.
Right on the heals of the Comcast/NBC merger AT&T guessing friendly political climate and a threat from Sprint's eye on T-mobile pushes to have their merger approved immediately soon after they see the Comcast agreement approved.
The political milk still stinks from the Comcast dump and key members of Congress tell the FCC they do not want to touch another debacle from the FCC coming to hurt them. To add to their troubles AT&T makes frequent and very arrogant political mistakes distancing once loyal political allies. So now no politician wants step forward (as of yet) to sell AT&Ts half truths after getting burned by supporting Comcast. Perhaps it will take more lobby money in the future or AT&T has broke this deal beyond repair. Time will tell. | |
|
| |
|
|
