Press Narrative Continues That AT&T Must Buy...Somebody AT&T's Supposed Spectrum Crunch Still Fictional The AT&T T-Mobile deal was shot down in large part because AT&T's claims that they needed T-Mobile assets to deliver LTE to 97% to the country simply weren't true. With the Qualcomm deal AT&T squats on more wireless spectrum than anyone (sans perhaps Verizon and their new SpectrumCO acquisitions) and certainly has the resources needed to deliver a cutting edge LTE network to the entire country. The problem is AT&T -- a company that repeatedly puts investor returns above the consumer and and network health -- loves to cut corners (read: cake, eat it too). Despite their claims that they needed T-Mobile spectrum being complete bunk, the company has convinced the press and Wall Street analysts (the latter eager for less competition, higher rates, and better quarterly returns) to continue the narrative that gosh -- AT&T just needs to buy somebody. JPMorgan analyst Phil Cusick gets Bloomberg to continue beating the AT&T acquisition drum, claiming AT&T needs to buy Leap or MetroPCS because, well -- just because: Leap Wireless International Inc. and MetroPCS Communications Inc. may be takeover targets for bigger rivals AT&T Inc. or T-Mobile USA after the larger companies’ $39 billion merger plan collapsed, JPMorgan Chase & Co said. The pay-as-you-go carriers could be suitable “near-term” sources of spectrum for a buyer, Phil Cusick, a JPMorgan analyst in New York, said in a note to clients today. AT&T cited a need for more spectrum as a reason for its attempt to buy T-Mobile. While pumping Leap and MetroPCS stock, Cusick forgets to mention that AT&T's own documents indicate they have adequate spectrum and asset resources and don't need to buy anyone. The recent Qualcomm deal also gives them some additional wiggle room, though that unpaired spectrum won't be fully utilized until LTE-Advanced supplemental downlink carrier aggregation technology evolves. Either way, AT&T needs to buy another company at this point like the Kardiashian family needs shoes. During T-Mobile deal hearings it was repeatedly illustrated that any AT&T capacity crunches are of their own design, due in part to the fact that AT&T doesn't efficiently use the resources they already have. The reality is AT&T (and Verizon) very often squat on spectrum to prevent competitors from entering the marketplace, but that's a market reality that the press and most Wall Street analysts (much to AT&T's pleasure) choose to repeatedly ignore. The former is often just lazy and blinded by AT&T talking points, while the latter enjoys using investor notes to make stocks jump on command.
|
  Steve BPremium
join:2004-08-02
Seattle, WA | That Point Was Missed A Lot During the whole "we need T-Mobile" thing, the whole point of AT&T squatting on lots of spectrum was rarely heard. It was a point I kept trying to make when discussing the merger with people. | |
|  | | | Re: That Point Was Missed A Lot The "MSM" ("main stream media"; FOX and Palin jingo) never gets the inside story or gets it right. I wish someone had a spectrum allocation/owner cheat sheet. It also seems like all the spectrum useful for wireless use had already been sold
--
Lakewood Accountability Action Group | »www.LAAG.us | Demanding action and accountability from local government
| |
| | | | | Re: That Point Was Missed A Lot What is missing is actually a resource utilization map, similar to what Senator Salizar, (Who is now heading the US Department of Interior) accomplished in his first year at the Bureau of Minerals Management.
This map shows active gas leases, and is used to determine if oil companies need more land for drilling, including offshore.
If a company doesn't need spectrum, because they are not properly utilizing it, it should be re-auctioned off instead of acquiring more spectrum.
That's what the US Department of Interior did following news reports that The Beaureau of Minerals Management found coke and sex parties taking place at the offices of Federal Regulators with companies that they were supposed to be regulating.
Turns out the head of the department at the time was in bed with well... Here's the story-
»www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washi···nted=all | |
|
| | | Hello!
If AT&T needs a network built, please have Randall Stephenson stop by. We can set his company up with a corporate account, and have all the tools needed to build a great network.
Our Corporate Office is conveniently located a few blocks from the freeway, on Paces Ferry Road, only a few miles from AT&T HQ in Atlanta.
Look forward to doing business with you! Ask for Frank Blank. He's our CEO.
You Can Do It, We Can Help.
HomeDepot | |
|
| | What's wrong with protecting investors? While Verizon spends more on an LTE network that appears to have more bugs than not. Seems as if they cut a few corners themselves in trying to push a new network that wasn't quite ready.
And let's not forget the grumbling of Verizon investors several years ago when Verizon was rolling out their expensive FiOS venture. Are not investors significant to any company's health?
Pushing a new network out just to be first certainly has its risks, no doubt. But being ready to service customers who are paying for this new network should be a priority. | |
| |  Rogue WolfAte Your Homework, And Framed The Dog
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY | Re: What's wrong with protecting investors? Define "investors". Are we talking about:
A) long-term stockholders who would like to see the company grow steadily, taking wise advantage of opportunities while holding onto its base, or
B) the Wall Street wunderkinder who want astronomical growth quarter after quarter, no matter the long-term detriment to the business, just so they can scrape off beaucoup bucks during the rise and then short the stock during the fall?
Seems the B-crowd is running the show these days, and is more than happy to throw the As under a bus if it puts another dime in their pockets.
--
Justin Timberlake brought sexy back. I'm putting it away again.
This content may not be retransmitted by your cable company without significant rate increases! | |
| | | |
| Reviews:
 ·Frontier Communi..
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by rockhounds_5:While Verizon spends more on an LTE network that appears to have more bugs than not.
Really? Verizon deserves a lot of flak but for this? They are deploying a relatively new technology. There are bound to be bugs and teething issues. I would have counted myself lucky to only deal with three outages in the first year I worked for the local WISP when we were working with the bleeding edge of technology.
I'm not saying the outages are a good thing but I think they are to be expected when you work with a new technology. Hell, what's the total time in hours that the LTE network has been down? It's not five nines of reliability (of course if you wanted that you wouldn't be using wireless....) but I'd wager it's been available >99% of the time in the markets where it has been deployed. | |
|
| | AT&T Must Buy...Somebody "That's no moon! - it's AT&T!"
[music plays: imperial march theme]
"Turn back, we can cancel"
"There is no time, they have us on contract, we are being pulled in" | |
| | | | Re: AT&T Must Buy...Somebody Well played! | |
|
| | why is the focus on AT&T and not verizon? If the claim is that they are both squatting on spectrum, then shouldn't the government be blocking the Verizon deal for spectrum?
seems like that's a far more urgent problem than AT&T potentially buying something down the road.
Verizon IS actually buying spectrum from the cable companies that they are supposedly going to squat on.
AT&T always comes out as the bigger devil and other companies like Verizon get a largely free pass. | |
| pkorx8
join:2003-06-19
San Francisco, CA Reviews:
 ·Comcast
·SONIC.NET
| CDMA? I know MetroPCS is on CDMA, and I don't know about LEAP.
So in such an acquisition, ATT is just buying spectrum, what happens to all the existing MetroPCS and LEAP customers?
I think the article is for analysts to just pump LEAP and MetroPCS stocks. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: A good acquisition target hmm. Comcast in Northern Illinois offers Digital Starter pack with any premium channel for $30 if you sign 2 year agreement. Premium channel lasts at no extra cost for 6 months. But in many areas it competes with U-Verse. | |
|
2 edits | AT&T should buy Verizon That way the Bell companies transform to Megatron, and the T-1000 cycle is complete.
The merger between AT&T and Verizon will create jobs, use spectrum for LTE, and lower prices as two giant corporations together will be the voice of the consumer.
Hey guys listen! I'm an analyst now. Look at those keywords. | |
| |  n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| Re: AT&T should buy Verizon said by HaloFans:That way the Bell companies transform to Megatron, and the T-1000 cycle is complete.
The merger between AT&T and Verizon will create jobs, use spectrum for LTE, and lower prices as two giant corporations together will be the voice of the consumer.
Hey guys listen! I'm an analyst now. Look at those keywords.
Actually they should call it AT&T! Then it will be like the last thirty years of the breakup never happened.
Honestly I would not be surprised if sometime in this decade such a merger does happen.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
 DustynPremium
join:2003-02-26
Ontario, CAN
kudos:7 | Death Star That AT&T logo is awesome!  | |
| Reviews:
·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
| youtube wrong answer: »www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kpTvm6CYA
AT&T apparently not happy that Verizon gets to buy MORE spectrum than they do..
AT&T will not be allowed to get bigger by acquiring another company. Any attempts to do so will only enrage the public and be the WRONG ANSWER.. bzzt! | |
| decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Verizon Broadban..
| stamp They just want to make sure no spectrum is available for another upcoming provider and that the big three have the lock down. Stamping out the embers of flame that is innovation/competition before the fire burns...
Sprint looks like the only one that may actually concern them now, but sprint is slow as molasses in the artics on rolling out the lte services and changing over those pesky nextel towers running IDEN.. However, if sprint goes fully with cap/price matching, then we are just done as the consumer... | |
| BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| Karl strikes again With a bunch of crap that's incredibly biased against AT&T. They are short on spectrum, maybe they can cobble together something that halfway resembles nationwide LTE, but Verizon was basically handed a monopoly on good quality nationwide LTE by the federal government by allowing them to acquire the spectrum they need, but not allowing AT&T to do likewise. | |
| | | | Re: Karl strikes again Just flogging a dead horse. The comment about AT&T's network health was laughable right after Verizon's 4th LTE outage. | |
| | Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| said by BiggA:With a bunch of crap that's incredibly biased against AT&T. They are short on spectrum, maybe they can cobble together something that halfway resembles nationwide LTE, but Verizon was basically handed a monopoly on good quality nationwide LTE by the federal government by allowing them to acquire the spectrum they need, but not allowing AT&T to do likewise.
AT&T went after Tmobile.. and if they actually looked at what they were trying to buy, you'd see the ONLY way it was worth $39 BILLION dollars was to stamp MONOPOLY all over the deal. Market consolidation in telecom is a controversial aspect of the economy that you will find both political parties want to avoid problems with at (nearly) all costs. To stir up a hornet's nest by rearing the ulgy head of MONOPOLY status for one or two wireless carriers is a headache best left to communist and/or socialist countries like Canada. | |
| | | | | Re: Karl strikes again Communist and/or socialist Canada? Half the time I can't tell if you guys are trolling or legitimately insane/utterly devoid of historical knowledge or context. | |
| | | | |
| | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| How is taking out another company that you don't compete with so that you can more effectively compete against your one competitor a monopoly? It was a matter of trying to compete with, and unbalance the duopoly that currently exists between AT&T and Verizon.
Mono means one, and since T-Mobile wasn't a top-tier carrier, AT&T and Verizon were going from two companies (a DUOpoly) to two companies (a DUOpoly). I think you need to learn how to use the english language.
If you ignore much of reality, you could count Sprint, T-Mobile, Metro, Leap and USCC as competitors in their respective markets, which would go from 5 to 4 in most markets, which again is not a MONOPOLY. | |
|
|  fuziwuziNot born yesterdayPremium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA | said by BiggA:They are short on spectrum...
No. 
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1 | |
| | | | said by BiggA:With a bunch of crap that's incredibly biased against AT&T. They are short on spectrum, ...
It's been shown they're not, apparently.
Do you think the Justice Dept. and FCC make their decisions based on Karl's opinion? Yet they came to the same conclusions as Karl, and, I would note, the vast majority of the rest of the wireless industry.
As for VZ: Yeah, while SBC was out trying to buy/bribe their way into market dominance, VZ actually went out and, you know, invested in improvements and upgrades.
I have to wonder, BiggA, if you're even in an SBC market, just own stock or just work for them? Because I gotta tell ya: As a very reluctant SBC "customer" (I think "victim" more appropriate), my view is there's absolutely nothing at all to like about the company. I've finally had enough and am doing my level best to take as much of our business at work, where I'm the TelCom Admin, and at home elsewhere. I can't say as I know a single customer of theirs, around here, that actually likes them. Out of all the people I know with wireless, I can think of only three (3), off-hand, that have SBC wireless. I know of only one (1) acquaintance that has SBC DSL-on--steroids, instead of cable.
Absolutely horrible company, IMO. I can't imagine why you're so in love with them. Unless, as I suggested, you've some financial incentive. | |
| | | | | | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| We're SNET>>>SBC>>>AT&T and Cingular>>>AT&T Mobility.
They are still short on spectrum for a nationwide 4G LTE rollout. The justice department was acting in a politically motivated way to make themselves look like they were doing their job, when in reality, they hurt the industry and the consumer.
AT&T has used the standards, and Verizon got away with using less spectrum because they used proprietary Qualcomm CDMA technology. AT&T, on the other hand, is using the standard GSM and UTMS, which requires more spectrum to operate two separate networks, and because of UMTS' channel size. | |
| | | |
See 8 replies to this post | |
| |  PaladinSage of the light
join:2001-08-17
Chester, IL | Reusing current CLR and PCS spectrum is not an ideal solution for AT&T to do. That's why AT&T went after T-Mobile. Greenfield spectrum can be deployed without AT&T screwing over current CLR and PCS customers in 4G HSPA+ markets. Of course, the same people in opposition to the T-Mobile deal will be first in line to complain about what happens to HSPA+ when refarming happens. These same people are also missing the ironic point is that now, even with AWS spectrum gained from AT&T due to the termination of the T-Mobile merger, T-Mobile is still going to have to refarm spectrum to get to full LTE deployment as well. A combined AT&T/T-Mobile would have lots of greenfield spectrum to share and would only have to start refarming much later down the line. | |
| | | |
See 20 replies to this post |
| | | said by BiggA:With a bunch of crap that's incredibly biased against AT&T. They are short on spectrum...
A "bunch of crap," indeed. You keep stating that AT&T is "short on spectrum," but repeated assertion does not make it so. Back it up with some numbers. Or take a look at my numbers, which challenge that AT&T is "short on spectrum." See my attachment above.
Now, I am no fan of AT&T or VZW. I think both are detriments to the overall health of the domestic wireless industry. But, of the two, AT&T certainly doth protest more.
In the top 25 markets, where spectrum is at the greatest premium, AT&T has 107.7% of the spectrum of VZW, not to mention more consistent per market bandwidth. Yet it is AT&T that cries "spectrum shortage, spectrum shortage, spectrum shortage," while VZW cruises along relatively smoothly, few complaints, just operating within its available means.
Why is that? Could it be that AT&T is an inefficient steward of our public spectrum? Is it just safe to say that AT&T does less with more spectrum? Hey, maybe that can be AT&T's new slogan. "AT&T. Doing less with more."
AJ | |
| | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| The way our system works, is that they more or less own it, as they pay once, and then have the rights to it. I think it would actually be better to have year or two-year leases that expire, and then if someone is not using the spectrum, or not using most of it, it could be re-divided, or taken away.
1. Doing LTE is 850 is going to require new phones, however the biggest obstacle to that is that they don't have the room. They need every 10mhz chunk that they can get to deploy HSPA+, as that network is hurting.
2. If you don't have both the up and downlink at 700, then it's wasting 700 spectrum, as you would be limited by the range and penetration of whatever frequency you are using on the uplink, so you may as well just use that more plentiful spectrum in the first place. If they can get both up and down into that lower 700, then it would work, albeit not being enough LTE spectrum in markets that they currently only have CLR and PCS.
The policy of this country is so screwed up. We basically need a whole new spectrum alignment, as T-Mobile is basically squatting on most of their spectrum, as they are only using the AWS in the cities where they have HSPA+. In most areas its just sitting idle.
3. That doesn't help them to pair that with other spectrum. It will help in areas that they already have SMH spectrum, which is great, since they have it in most major markets, but it's not going to help them in the markets that they don't have SMH or AWS right now. They may just choose not to do true nationwide LTE, and instead use HSPA+ in those areas, since those areas are largely rural/exurban that don't have capacity issues. However, that won't keep them up with Verizon.
4. I'm not doubting that. However, as demand grows, Verizon will have 20-30mhz or more of greenfield spectrum for LTE, which will put them in a hugely advantageous position.
5. They do own SMH in most of the major markets. That doesn't help West Virginia, northern Michigan, even eastern Connecticut. In those areas, Verizon will reign supreme, as AT&T can either degrade their HSPA+ network to refarm spectrum, or not roll out LTE. The latter option would be OK, I guess, if they roll out HSPA+ in those areas.
7. That's fine but what about West Virginia, parts of the deep south, northern Michigan, and other areas that they don't have the spectrum in? If they can't get more spectrum, they can't rollout LTE and do HSPA+ well in those areas. The result: Verizon will have an LTE monopoly in many areas.
At least if AT&T can do HSPA+ in those areas, they will be OKish, but Verizon will still have a HUGE LTE coverage advantage when it comes to those large areas that aren't covered by AT&T's LTE spectrum. Verizon has also been smart in allowing local carriers to build out their LTE coverage in areas that they don't want to build, so if they can deal with a few small areas where they are weaker than AT&T, like parts of Florida, West Virginia and all of Alaska, then they will be the dominant carrier, and not have competition in their class, which would be unfortunate, as their prices will go up to reflect that, and may, in the long term, hurt overall coverage. | |
| | | fuziwuziNot born yesterdayPremium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA | Re: Karl strikes again said by BiggA:blah blah blah blah blah
NO.
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1 | |
| | | | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | Re: Karl strikes again And what's your point again and what facts do you have to back it up? That's right, you didn't make one, and don't have any. | |
|
 dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | crunch? no. they just want more spectrum to squat on.
ma bell needs to be broke up[again!] | |
| |  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | So AT&T wants to buy something......... OK AT&T so you want to buy something how about TeleMongolia. Just think how much cheaper it would be to buy off the Government.  $2.04 cent a share. cheap.
»www.mtcone.net/ | |
|
| |
|
|
