AT&T Learned Absolutely Nothing From Failed T-Mobile Deal Jim Cicconi Blames Deal Opponents for T-Mobile Layoffs Friday Mar 23 2012 14:45 EDT Part of the reason the AT&T T-Mobile deal collapsed (aside from it being one of the most anti-competitive telecom deals ever proposed) was AT&T's hubris -- which ranged from paying random non-telecom related groups to parrot support, to the glib commentary of their top lobbying and policy guru, Jim Cicconi. Throughout the deal, Jim was consistently upset how nobody was willing to believe his made up facts -- like how eliminating T-Mobile would somehow magically increase competition while lowering wireless data prices. You'd think after taking such a severe public beating for the failed deal (not to mention for their recent wireless price hikes and throttling), AT&T would lay low for a little while. Perhaps pause for a moment, rest leisurely on the giant bags of money created by their seemingly endless new fees, bad ideas and price hikes, and contemplate why exactly they're a company that consistently sits in last place in nearly every major customer satisfaction study. Instead, Jim Cicconi popped back up today to try and blame this week's T-Mobile call center layoffs on those who opposed AT&T's awful idea. From the blog entry: quote:
Normally, we’d not comment on something like this. But I feel this is an exception for one big reason– only a few months ago AT&T promised to preserve these very same call centers and jobs if our merger was approved. We also predicted that if the merger failed, T-Mobile would be forced into major layoffs....Rarely are a regulatory agency’s predictive judgments proven so wrong so fast. But for the government’s decision, centers now being closed would be staying open, workers now facing layoffs would have job guarantees, and communities facing turmoil would have security. Only a few months later, the truth of who was right is sadly obvious.
The only correct sentence in that quote is the last one. In reality, T-Mobile's financial hit came in large part because of a mass exodus of T-Mobile users (most of whom fled to Sprint) who didn't want to be AT&T customers. Sitting in gridlock for months as AT&T executives scurried to put lipstick on the pig of a deal didn't help matters. Meanwhile, the 1900 net lost jobs at T-Mobile are a drop in the bucket to the expected tens of thousands of jobs that would have been eliminated as AT&T purged T-Mobile of redundant executive, support, and retail employees. AT&T's job creation claims were proven false. Repeatedly. AT&T won either way; they failed to eliminate a competitor (and make no mistake, that was the deal's primary objective) but still managed to weaken one. Better yet, AT&T gleaned all manner of sensitive competitive data about Sprint and T-Mobile during deal court proceedings, so they can get hard to work trying to just kill both companies instead of having to acquire them. When and if T-Mobile collapses entirely, AT&T can surely then blame consumers, Santa, or perhaps Julio Iglesias. Just as long as AT&T doesn't take the blame themselves. That could result in improvement and evolution into a company people actually like. Now was the time for AT&T to sit down, shut up, pay attention to why they're becoming one of the most reviled names in telecom, and work toward fixing AT&T's borderline disdain for consumers and entitlement mentality. Instead, with one blog post Cicconi makes it incredibly clear AT&T learned absolutely nothing from one of the worst deals in telecom history and the unprecedented public opposition it generated. Why would Cicconi decide to potentially make things worse for AT&T? In addition to just being petty and obnoxious because they were finally told no, Jim likely wanted to distract the press from the fact that AT&T was sued this week by the DOJ for intentiionally stealing millions from taxpayers by helping to perpetuate IP relay service fraud. Apparently Cicconi would prefer the press talk about his hubris instead of his company's efforts to perpetuate and profit off of criminal activity. |
 | |
Shocking newsI can't believe AT&T was right. After all, money equals free speech. | |
|  |  mr seanProfessional Infidel
join:2001-04-03
N. Absentia
kudos:1 |
Re: Shocking newssaid by Karl0:When and if T-Mobile collapses entirely, AT&T can surely then blame consumers, Santa, or perhaps Julio Iglesias Maybe Julio is just running with the wrong crowd (down by the schoolyard), but we know where the real blame lies: The Kardashians, Lindsay Lohan, and the Godless Socialist Agenda of Hollywood. | |
| | | | |
Re: Shocking newssaid by Karl0
Maybe Julio is just running with the wrong crowd (down by the schoolyard), ... [/BQUOTE :I see what you did there =) Good 'ol Simon and Garfunkel tunes are still awesome in times like these. | |
|
|  RR ConductorNWP RR Inc.,serving NW CA
Premium Member
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
kudos:1
Netgear R7000
|
to HaloFans
said by HaloFans:I can't believe AT&T was right. After all, money equals free speech.
Sadly, that is more often true than not in our country, especially today. | |
| | | |
ipv7 to HaloFans
Anon
2012-Mar-24 7:51 am
to HaloFans
The FCC gave Deutsche Telekom AG a 2 Billion US tax payer dollar check. ATT wrote off their entire loss from the Tmobile deal and went from profits to loss.
AT&T Inc. swung to a fourth-quarter loss of $6.68 billion compared with a profit of $1.1 billion in fourth-quarter 2010, after the telecom giant took a pre-tax charge of about $4 billion for its failed acquisition of T-Mobile USA as well as other expenses, Bloomberg reports. But the company's revenue in the recent quarter rose 3.6 percent to $32.5 billion as activations of the iPhone soared to 7.6 million. | |
|
 S_engineer
Premium Member
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL |
reviled names in telecomWow...that could be a rather large list. One problem is that the idiots on Capitol Hill believe his bulls***. | |
| | |
40757180
Premium Member
2012-Mar-23 2:20 pm
Congratulation government you cause people to lose their jobCongratulation government by not approving the At&t merger deal with T-Mobile you caused people to lose their jobs, jobs, jobs. If you were have approved this merger this jobs, jobs, jobs would been saved. | |
| | | |  ·Xfinity
|
to 40757180
said by 40757180:Congratulation government by not approving the At&t merger deal with T-Mobile you caused people to lose their jobs, jobs, jobs. If you were have approved this merger this jobs, jobs, jobs would been saved.
jobs saved? You're deluded..tmob would have lost nearly all of it's employees as att removed all of them as it absorbed tmob. | |
| | | | |
40757180
Premium Member
2012-Mar-23 2:56 pm
Re: Congratulation government you cause people to lose their jobsaid by hescominsoon:said by 40757180:Congratulation government by not approving the At&t merger deal with T-Mobile you caused people to lose their jobs, jobs, jobs. If you were have approved this merger this jobs, jobs, jobs would been saved.
jobs saved? You're deluded..tmob would have lost nearly all of it's employees as att removed all of them as it absorbed tmob. That is not true. At&t have said before that they would instead create more jobs, jobs, jobs. The people that are against this want jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs to be lost. | |
| | | | Cobra11M
join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX |
Re: Congratulation government you cause people to lose their jobsaid by 40757180:said by hescominsoon:said by 40757180:Congratulation government by not approving the At&t merger deal with T-Mobile you caused people to lose their jobs, jobs, jobs. If you were have approved this merger this jobs, jobs, jobs would been saved.
jobs saved? You're deluded..tmob would have lost nearly all of it's employees as att removed all of them as it absorbed tmob. That is not true. At&t have said before that they would instead create more jobs, jobs, jobs. The people that are against this want jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs to be lost. ok...just how would they create jobs??, they have their a** so far up for money that it would never happen.. AT&T if anythin we learned is that they where tryin to become what they where 30 years ago...its unacceptable, look at where they are killin jobs even before the annoucement.. (passing bills within the states to prevent local LOCAL community broadband projects...HAS NOTHIN TO DO WITH AT&T..) sorry I need to calm down, lol idk how to retype my little flare but its not toward u as a person.., im just sayin in general | |
| | | | | | |
Re: Congratulation government you cause people to lose their jobStop...look at Silentlooker's comments again. He's making fun of people that think that way. If he were serious about defending AT&T he'd also have thrown in some random nonsensical Obama insults along with calling everybody who's against AT&T both socialists and communists without realizing the contradiction. | |
|
| | |  mech1164I'll Be Back
join:2001-11-19
Lodi, NJ |
to 40757180
said by 40757180:said by hescominsoon:said by 40757180:Congratulation government by not approving the At&t merger deal with T-Mobile you caused people to lose their jobs, jobs, jobs. If you were have approved this merger this jobs, jobs, jobs would been saved.
jobs saved? You're deluded..tmob would have lost nearly all of it's employees as att removed all of them as it absorbed tmob. That is not true. At&t have said before that they would instead create more jobs, jobs, jobs. The people that are against this want jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs to be lost. What a crock that is. The only thing ATT knows is how to Maximize it's Profit Potential. Those Fantasy new jobs were never in the equation. | |
| | | |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |
to 40757180
said by 40757180: That is not true. At&t have said before that they would instead create more jobs, jobs, jobs. The people that are against this want jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs to be lost. Sorry, but every time 2 companies merge there are always net job losses because the new company no longer needs 2 HR departments, 2 legal departments, 2 marketing departments, 2 advertising departments, 2 IT departments, etc. AT&T also claimed it would bring back jobs that were previously offshored. If they wanted to be so patriotic what were they waiting for? They should have brought those jobs back immediately. | |
|
| | |
to 40757180
Surely jobs would have been saved through redundant positions being eliminated! I have no doubt... | |
| | |
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2012-Mar-23 2:20 pm
Win-Win for AT&TLooks like T-Mobile's troubles now might accomplish what the merger couldn't and eliminate a competitor. | |
| |  FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5 |
FFH5
Premium Member
2012-Mar-23 3:20 pm
Re: Win-Win for AT&Tsaid by pnh102:Looks like T-Mobile's troubles now might accomplish what the merger couldn't and eliminate a competitor.
And all the talk about hatred of AT&T and bad customer svc reputation, etc, etc?? It hasn't stopped the qtr by qtr increase in new net customers. And that is the only numbers that matter to AT&T. Until people start leaving in large numbers AT&T will continue to disrespect the bloggers and the consumer advocate organizations. | |
|
 intellerSociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK |
the following is a public service announcement.If you are still with ATT and out of contract, you need to walk with your money now.
Your unlimited data plan means nothing anymore, so don't stay for that.
Chances are the least you are paying to ATT is $60, excluding the myriad of taxes and fees.
You can have the exact same coverage as ATT though and pay a fraction of your current bill.
Do like me and many other enlightened individuals and go to:
www.straighttalksim.com
Get the correct SIM for your current ATT phone, port your number over, and enjoy the freedom of calling your own shots.
Even if you are still under contract you might consider paying the ETF just to get out and enjoy $45 everything plans. Best of all you stay on ATT's network, so no loss of covereage.
Make evil companies submit....one account at a time. | |
| | | |
Re: the following is a public service announcement.Fail no domestic roaming
Just bc they are largest gsm doesn't mean they cover all areas where is gsm signal. Not talking about tmobile but rural carriers such as iwireless in Iowa.
Forget about international roaming too. U think everyone can preorder sim cards on destination's country eBay or right in airport? What if I live in Seattle and decide the same day to go to Vancouver? I don't think I wanna be completely off once I cross the border. I wanna have signal until I get to my destination where eventually I could get local sim for my unlocked phone! | |
| | | intellerSociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK |
Re: the following is a public service announcement.but you don't live in Seattle, you live in Iowa.
I have yet to roam off ATT in the US. Probably because they are the largest GSM network in the states...domestic romaing is not an issue. | |
|
|  TheHelpful1
Premium Member
join:2002-01-11
Upper Marlboro, MD |
to inteller
said by inteller:If you are still with ATT and out of contract, you need to walk with your money now. Can somebody shove their hand down ATT's throat and pull out cingular? Think about when 'wireless phones' really took off, and I don't mean those phone 'purses' you moved from car to car either. It was all 'Bell Atlantic' for most of the eastern sea-board. When they got split up in to all of the smaller carriers, those Bell Atlantic kids chose to continue the build out of their wireless product on entirely different spectrums so as not to compete with each other and force consumers in to specific handset hardware down the road. Imagine what the wireless landscape in America would be if ATT, Verizon, Cingular(RIP), T-Mobile, and Sprint all built out on the same spectrum and openly competed with each other for the benefit of their customer? Likewise imagine if a wireless provider bid on more spectrum and won government approval for it and then was forced in the contract to do something with it in 2 years time or else forfeit that spectrum back to the government with no refund. I guarantee you there would be a hell of a lot more competition in the USA than there is now. | |
| | | | |
Re: the following is a public service announcement.said by TheHelpful1:Can somebody shove their hand down ATT's throat and pull out cingular? It amazes me how so many people get this consistently wrong. Cingular was a joint venture between SBC (Southwestern Bell) and Bell South. SBC then bought out AT&T and renamed Cingular to AT&T Wireless. They subsequently bought out Bell South as well. The folks that were in charge of Cingular are pretty much the same people that are now in charge of AT&T Wireless. | |
| | | | | |
Re: the following is a public service announcement.I was just about to post this.
AT&T is by name only. It is really Cingular in disguise. | |
| | | | | Cobra11M
join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX |
Re: the following is a public service announcement.said by Chuck_IV:I was just about to post this.
AT&T is by name only. It is really Cingular in disguise.
Its basically all the bells back together... YAY!!! | |
| | | | | | | |
Re: the following is a public service announcement. | |
| | | | | | |  elwoodbluesElwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2 |
Re: the following is a public service announcement. | |
|
| | | | |
to footballdude
said by footballdude:t amazes me how so many people get this consistently wrong. Cingular was a joint venture between SBC (Southwestern Bell) and Bell South. SBC then bought out AT&T and renamed Cingular to AT&T Wireless. They subsequently bought out Bell South as well. The folks that were in charge of Cingular are pretty much the same people that are now in charge of AT&T Wireless.
That's very close, but not quite correct. Yes, Cingular was a joint venture between SBC and BS. At some point AT&T (the real AT&T) sold its wireless business to Cingular SBC bought AT&T and eventually assumed the name "AT&T" (now we're really talking about SBC under a new name) bought out BS' share of Cingular and renamed it "AT&T Wireless" "AT&T" bought BS Now, when you're dealing with "AT&T Wireless," you're mostly dealing with what were Cingular people, true. Now, when you're dealing with "AT&T," you may be dealing with SBC, BS or (real) AT&T people. Mostly SBC people, tho. | |
| | | | |  djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:4
2 edits |
djrobx
Premium Member
2012-Mar-23 5:22 pm
Re: the following is a public service announcement.said by jseymour:That's very close, but not quite correct.
Yes, Cingular was a joint venture between SBC and BS.
At some point AT&T (the real AT&T) sold its wireless business to Cingular
SBC bought AT&T and eventually assumed the name
"AT&T" (now we're really talking about SBC under a new name) bought out BS' share of Cingular and renamed it "AT&T Wireless"
"AT&T" bought BS
Now, when you're dealing with "AT&T Wireless," you're mostly dealing with what were Cingular people, true.
Now, when you're dealing with "AT&T," you may be dealing with SBC, BS or (real) AT&T people. Mostly SBC people, tho.
Stephen Colbert explains this best » www.glumbert.com/media/attCan somebody shove their hand down ATT's throat and pull out cingular? ... [snip] ... The folks that were in charge of Cingular are pretty much the same people that are now in charge of AT&T Wireless. True. But I still miss the "dumb and innocent" Cingular that had to work hard to earn customers. I used to be able to tether for free off of Cingular's phones and PDAs (which, by the way, usually weren't even locked). I could move my SIM to whatever device I wanted to as God intended, and not get nasty-grams via text about being on the "wrong" plan. Prices were moving downward, not upward. | |
| | | | | | Arty50
Premium Member
join:2003-10-04 |
Arty50
Premium Member
2012-Mar-23 6:47 pm
Re: the following is a public service announcement.This chart explains it well:  That said, I loved Cingular and PacBell. I fucking hate AT&T though. | |
| | | | | | | | |
Primeco Man
Anon
2012-Mar-25 7:40 pm
Re: the following is a public service announcement.Do you happen to know where the old PrimeCo Wireless company fits on this chart? Just curious, as I used to sell those. | |
| | | | | | | | FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5 |
FFH5
Premium Member
2012-Mar-25 7:45 pm
Re: the following is a public service announcement.said by Primeco Man :Do you happen to know where the old PrimeCo Wireless company fits on this chart? Just curious, as I used to sell those.
Eventually became part of Verizon Wireless thru Vodafone. » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PrimeCo | |
|
| | | | | | TheHelpful1
Premium Member
join:2002-01-11
Upper Marlboro, MD |
to Arty50
Regardless of CDMA, GSM, etc, imagine if AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint and Ceturylink all were on the same radio type as when you had Ameritech, Bell-South, Pacific Wireless, SWB, BA, NYNEX and US.West?
Seven carriers in the latter example, all competing for your business with low prices, cheap data rates and minimal overage charges.
Great image find too. | |
|
| | | | |
| FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5 |
to inteller
said by inteller:If you are still with ATT and out of contract, you need to walk with your money now.
Your unlimited data plan means nothing anymore, so don't stay for that.
Chances are the least you are paying to ATT is $60, excluding the myriad of taxes and fees.
You can have the exact same coverage as ATT though and pay a fraction of your current bill.
Do like me and many other enlightened individuals and go to:
www.straighttalksim.com
If you want data access the coverage map is much smaller than AT&T's. » www.straighttalk.com/Coverage If happy with just voice, coverage is good. And Straight talk is really Tracfone and Carlos Slim's empire. So while this may be a good option for some, it won't work for everybody. | |
| | |
•••• | | Cobra11M
join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX |
to inteller
said by inteller:If you are still with ATT and out of contract, you need to walk with your money now.
Your unlimited data plan means nothing anymore, so don't stay for that.
Chances are the least you are paying to ATT is $60, excluding the myriad of taxes and fees.
You can have the exact same coverage as ATT though and pay a fraction of your current bill.
Do like me and many other enlightened individuals and go to:
www.straighttalksim.com
Get the correct SIM for your current ATT phone, port your number over, and enjoy the freedom of calling your own shots.
Even if you are still under contract you might consider paying the ETF just to get out and enjoy $45 everything plans. Best of all you stay on ATT's network, so no loss of covereage.
Make evil companies submit....one account at a time.
I for one am, infact my whole fam is thinkin of takin the iphones and all to straighttalk.., and port the numbers along with it.., its way cheaper than AT&T, even though it runs on their network | |
| | | intellerSociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK |
Re: the following is a public service announcement.Ah, another enlightened soul! Good for you! | |
|
|  93388818It's cool, I'm takin it back
Premium Member
join:2000-03-14
Dallas, TX |
to inteller
can I get this on straighttalk? 
| |
| | | Cobra11M
join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX |
Re: the following is a public service announcement.said by 93388818:can I get this on straighttalk?
[att=1]
maybe maybe not.., lol, Ill never see those speeds where I live due to not livin in a big city.., we finally got 3g last year... I can only imagin how long it will take for 4g to come... another 8 years more likely.. | |
| | | intellerSociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK |
to 93388818
yes LTE phones work on straight talk too. | |
|
| djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:4 ·Time Warner Cable
|
to inteller
Very interesting option.
It wouldn't save me very much money, though. I have two iPhones on AT&T's unlimited data plans using a family plan (plus a third voice only line). In total it costs me around $112 per month. This $112 buys me the latest and greatest iPhone every year for the subsidized price, which looks to be a $300-400 value compared to the unlocked / ebay editions of the same phones.
The unlimited voice and text parts aren't useful to me. iMessage means my 200 text plan easily covers the handful of people I talk to who don't also have iPhones, and I have boatloads of unused rollover minutes.
I'm also very wary of the concept of "making evil companies submit" by going with an alternate option that still relies on said evil company's tower. If AT&T feels the slightest bit of a threat, they can quickly make life miserable for StraightTalk customers, or make the wholesale terms unfavorable to StraightTalk.
I did, however, decide to go with Verizon for my new iPad, because I'm thoroughly disgusted with AT&T's behavior of late, in particular, their treatment of "unlimited" iPhone customers. Verizon doesn't cover my home, but for the iPad, I don't need coverage at home anyway. Verizon's LTE service is quite a joy to use where available. | |
| | | |
to inteller
What's the point? I currently have 4 phones on my plan. With Straighttalk I would be paying MORE than I pay AT&T and getting LESS of everything. | |
|
 EricthornIt only hurts when I laugh
Premium Member
join:2001-08-10
Paragould, AR |
I don't think Jim reads anything...He just makes it up as he goes.
One only needs to search at&t layoffs to see how they treat their employees, and a lot of that is when they aren't merging with another company. | |
| | |
I'm impressed he said anything at allAT&T needs to give it up, the government is not going to turn around and approve the deal because 1900 people in call centers lost their job.
Verizon is closing several call centers as well, but guess what the government isn't all of a sudden infusing that company with money. (Oddly enough I keep getting ads in Pandora how they are hiring in the Lincoln and Omaha areas).
Anyone who has ever watched a merger occur will realize that IF people in the call centers wouldn't have lost their jobs that a major number out in the field would have. All of a sudden you have network engineers, managers, executives, line techs who all will be laid off because there will be a surplus. Those employees are a lot more expensive to the company anyway, especially if they are union.
It's sad that these people are losing their jobs, but there is no one to blame but T Mobile themselves. They are choosing to build an LTE network which will cost billions. Some have argued they won't need the network upgrade in order to compete with current LTE setups and that could very well be true. This is TMobile's choice and the blame can not be placed on anyone else. | |
| | Cobra11M
join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX |
Re: I'm impressed he said anything at allsaid by daake07:AT&T needs to give it up, the government is not going to turn around and approve the deal because 1900 people in call centers lost their job.
Verizon is closing several call centers as well, but guess what the government isn't all of a sudden infusing that company with money. (Oddly enough I keep getting ads in Pandora how they are hiring in the Lincoln and Omaha areas).
Anyone who has ever watched a merger occur will realize that IF people in the call centers wouldn't have lost their jobs that a major number out in the field would have. All of a sudden you have network engineers, managers, executives, line techs who all will be laid off because there will be a surplus. Those employees are a lot more expensive to the company anyway, especially if they are union.
It's sad that these people are losing their jobs, but there is no one to blame but T Mobile themselves. They are choosing to build an LTE network which will cost billions. Some have argued they won't need the network upgrade in order to compete with current LTE setups and that could very well be true. This is TMobile's choice and the blame can not be placed on anyone else.
correct, and aint that what unemployment is for??, goverment doesnt care, AT&T might of had their way up their in canada...(Bell) but good luck down here haha | |
| | | | |
AnoNameous
Anon
2012-Mar-27 4:40 pm
Re: I'm impressed he said anything at allI'm willing to be those 1900 might propel AT&T from the Elite 8 to the finals!! » bit.ly/GXsGR4 | |
|
 n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY |
n2jtx
Member
2012-Mar-23 3:50 pm
Always The SameAnytime I see a headline here with "AT&T" in it, I have to wonder, before reading it, what nonsense they have dreamed up. I am rarely if ever disappointed. I realize company's act in their best interest but usually they have some humanity. AT&T seems to be a robotic type company that has absolutely zero interest in anything other than the bottom line. On the plus side, Karma eventually rears its ugly head and rewards such behavior. The failed T-Mobile deal was just the tip of the iceberg. I suspect the day will come when AT&T will look longingly on these days and wish they had done things different. | |
| | Cobra11M
join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX |
Re: Always The Same+1 | |
|
kerton
join:2003-05-15
Pleasanton, CA |
kerton
Member
2012-Mar-23 4:11 pm
Don't Fully AgreeKarl, I think you've hit on a fair bit of fact here, and hating AT&T is a fairly easy thing to do given their clumsy manner of applying caps and throttles, but you're wrong about two points: 1) T-Mobile's customer losses are because of the proposed AT&T Merger You see, T-Mo had repeated quarters of substantial subscriber losses *before* the AT&T deal proposal. In fact, that is the reason Deutsche Telekom wanted to unload it: it wasn't doing well, and they had no spectrum to make the leap to 4G. T-Mo didn't have the iPhone...still doesn't. In fact, you can put an unlocked iPhone on T-Mo, but because of their odd spectrum, you can't use it any faster than 2.5G EDGE speeds. T-Mo had a low price advantage, but is losing that advantage to Sprint, Metro PCS, Leap Cricket, etc. So they were/are being squeezed on the high end by Verizon LTE, and iPhone carriers, and on the low end by price competition. You're way off to claim that the AT&T merger is what made T-Mo customers bleed when that trend was well established before. 2) AT&T has weakened T-Mo Au contraire, the broken merger deal has greatly strengthened T-Mo. They now have a $4 Billion break-up penalty that AT&T had contracted to pay should the deal fall through. And another part of the break up penalty is a chunk of spectrum, which T-Mo desperately needed to have a path to LTE 4G. » www.pcmag.com/article2/0 ··· 2,00.aspSo, with the AT&T penalty cash and spectrum, T-Mo promptly announced that they would launch LTE on that spectrum: » www.wired.com/gadgetlab/ ··· tiative/So you're incorrect. T-Mo was STRENGTHENED by the failed takeover deal. cheers, Derek Kerton @derekkerton | |
| |
•••••••• | | |
Technically he's correct...... since the slashing and burning after the takeover would have been of AT&T employees (T-Mobile wouldn't exist at that point). | |
| BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
EARTH |
BiggA
Premium Member
2012-Mar-23 6:12 pm
Biased and wrong in the first sentenceKarl is at it again. | |
| |
•••• |  SrsBsns
join:2001-08-30
Oklahoma City, OK |
SrsBsns
Member
2012-Mar-23 10:10 pm
Ex employee hereI just wanted to add my two cents here. I spent the better part of a decade with the company and went through the mergers. I've seen what actually happens without all the speculation going on here. Even if this merger went though this is what would have happened.
Right after the merger for several months these centers will not have union protection until they can vote it in. There will be hurdles to jump over just to hold a vote. This will create a window where bad things happen. With the newly acquired employees vulnerable they will need to reapply for their jobs. The company insists its just a formality to transition from being a T-Mobile employee to an AT&T. Some wont make it through. All those call centers would start getting consolidated slowly over time into just a few buildings They would end up with way too many managers and reps under one roof. After that the company would then start playing a game of survival of the fittest by creating performance goals that were impossible to meet and ratchet up the hostile work environment to the point where most sane people would quit. The highest paid centers would get targeted first. Its a game of lets make them quit so they cant get unemployment until they reach the headcount they want. If that does not get them to the numbers they want then the performance firings start.
These jobs were gone no matter what. The difference here is that AT&T wanted to be able to hide the layoffs in the form of its own force reduction plan rather than a real layoff that we see here. | |
| | WhatNow
Premium Member
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC |
WhatNow
Premium Member
2012-Mar-24 5:21 pm
Re: Ex employee hereFrom what I can tell they still have not completely absorbed BellSouth. The BS area is having big layoffs in craft and announcements of major layoffs in management next month. If they did not get the T-mobile infrastructure why are they laying off the very employees that are needed to build the plant to fill that hole?
I think the company is sicker then is showing up in public reports. I am reading they have halted new Uverse projects and I am hearing rumors they are halting or slowing down on wireless new wireless projects. They are bleeding POTS and DSL customers so it makes you wonder how bad it really is for the company. I wonder if the T-mobile was to help coverup how bad the inside numbers really are. They could hide behind it's the merger or you could not compare the numbers from one year with those in the future. | |
|
| |
midwesttech1
Anon
2012-Mar-25 3:12 am
Karl, are you upset AT&T wouldn't hire you?I'm not sure of the axe you are grinding here Karl, but your logic is insane, at best. Do you know the main reason why data prices are high? Spectrum! There isn't enough of it. Spectrum is limited right now, and the capacity just is not there to lower prices enough to have consumers bust in and use all the capacity on the networks. Don't tell me they aren't using spectrum efficiently - they are using it to the best they can. Take for example Verizon, who has a large amount of spectrum - much of the spectrum that is in use is currently providing voice coverage, with data coverage have a limit on it while voice coverage enjoys a robust footprint. The same goes for AT&T, and while AT&T shows they have a lot of spectrum, it must be managed differently as you can not place the same users per MHz as you can on other technologies. If AT&T would have been able to purchase T-Mobile, you would have found that as capacity increased, more users would have adopted which would have drove down prices. After AT&T purchased BellSouth, and combined Cingular - many layoffs happened with BST management employees - but most were natural attrition - and many of the laid off employees were offered positions in the mobility unit. So while the number of employees decreased over 4 years, most were natural decreases, with under 3% being actual force reductions for that reporting period. With or without the BST merger, both legacy companies would have had extensive layoffs as landline is a declining business - much like AOL was; it is just simple business when you drill down. Your rhetoric is insane, biased and completely misinformed. When AT&T customers start jumping ship in droves to go to Big Red, you will have something to write about, until then why not write about something newsworthy and unbiased. | |
| | intellerSociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK |
Re: Karl, are you upset AT&T wouldn't hire you?*bwahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahah aah*
*gasp*
*bwaahahahaahahahaahhaahahahahaahahaahahahahaahahahahahahaahaahah" | |
|
| |
|
How about .. |
·
·
·
