The Truth Could Kill the AT&T T-Mobile Deal Nobody is Buying AT&T's Justification For T-Mobile Acquisition Only one major telecom merger has been blocked in the last decade: DirecTV-Dish. AT&T could be the second failure. Money is the mother's milk of politics, Willie Brown always says, but even AT&T's money may not be enough this time. Analyst Craig Moffett of Sanford Bernstein estimates a surprising 35% chance of failure for AT&T's proposed acquisition of T-Mobile. He supports the deal and is carrier friendly, but sees a one in three chance the government will block it. The respected John Hodulik of UBS believes regulatory approval will be "touch and go," while Stifel analysts Arbogast and Kaut, among the best in D.C., will go no further than "more likely than not" -- although they believe AT&T could succeed in "muscling the deal through." AT&T insists they need the deal despite reporters around the country tearing apart key AT&T claims. I was amazed they now assert a desperate spectrum issue. AT&T President John Stankey has been insisting for two years that spectrum shortages were not the cause of their network problems. In the Wall Street Journal, Professor Gerry Faulhaber comments that "putting the two networks together does not create spectrum." There would be only a minor improvement in utilization rates if the networks are merged. T-Mobile has 34 million customers who will probably demand more data after they upgrade to smartphones. The Press Isn't Buying An AT&T Spectrum CrunchFrom Los Angeles, Jon Healey of the Times writes "Spectrum crisis? What spectrum crisis?" Jon explains Cisco projections that mobile data growth will drop by more than half are simply common sense. Once the majority of users have migrated to smartphones, "much of the growth goes away," he notes. Using the Cisco data, I created a chart (right) of falling growth rates. Across the nation, AP's Peter Svensson reports, "AT&T talks of spectrum shortage, yet it has plenty." He adds AT&T's own numbers "a much lower rate" of growth going forward, noting that with much of T-Mobile's spectrum already in use, the deal won't result in fresh airwaves becoming available. In New York, even the normally business friendly Wall Street Journal headlines "Skepticism Greets AT&T Theory, Telecom Giant Says T-Mobile Deal Will Improve Network Quality, but Experts See Other Options." They also discovered that even in New York, 30-40% of tower capacity is unused. AT&T predicts the deal will take twelve months to close. After that, they will have to swap millions of T-Mobile's 3G phones to efficiently use the network, meaning that most of the proposed benefits will take two to three years to materialize. AT&T could simply put radios on those additional towers in less time than that, or otherwise increase capacity. Within 18-24 months, AT&T can dramatically expand the use of spectrum-efficient technologies. They have already proven in the field WiFi phones, hotspots, femtocells, distributed antenna systems and other cost-effective new gear. Deal Won't Help Already Flimsy National Wireless GoalsAfter the supposed spectrum crisis, AT&T's second benefit is even more dubious. President Obama set a goal of 98% LTE coverage in 2016. AT&T says they're now committed to expanding 4G LTE deployment to an additional 46.5 million Americans, including in rural, smaller communities, "for a total of 294 million or 95% of the U.S. population" by sometime around 2016. That would seem a major contribution until you review the facts. As this website has highlighted, the government's 98% goal would also be reached with or without an AT&T-T-Mobile merger. Verizon will reach almost all of those homes ahead of AT&T. Verizon's LTE should cover 285 million subscribers by 2013 according to CTO Dick Lynch. The company insists they'll reach "nearly all the population" as they continue building in later years and will be at AT&T's 95% figure or higher by the time AT&T deploys. AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson's plan for 2013 is only about 240 million. The builds will nearly entirely overlap as both companies seek dense populations, towers already built and good road coverage. Verizon's planned coverage is in red and AT&T's in yellow. Because AT&T & Verizon have similar buildout plans, the combined U.S. total coverage in blue is very close Verizon in red. The incremental coverage provided by AT&T's network will likely be only 1-2% of the population. My take? AT&T has unlimited money, some of the best lobbyists in the world, and a remarkable ability to persuade D.C. Cosmetic "concessions" are significant enough to change everything, and I wouldn't bet against them. This article is part of an effort to solicit paid content from the Broadband Reports community. If you'd like to participate, please contact us.
|
 | | If it doesn't go through then what? Tmob merges with Sprint or bought by Google?
I suspect DT will get out of the US market if they can't get a controlling interest. | |
|  |  Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| Re: If it doesn't go through then what? They have a controlling interest in T-Mobile USA. T-Mobile USA is profitable the last time I checked. Why would DT want to get out of the US market? If they were so eager to get out of the market then why did AT&T have to bid so high for T-Mobile USA?
The one that confuses me is why Vodaphone sticks around. They have no control at all over Verizon Wireless and Verizon has repeatedly expressed a desire to buy them out. I would see Verizon buying them out before I'd see them going after Sprint, regardless of whether or not the T-Mobile/AT&T deal goes through. | |
|  |  |  | | Re: If it doesn't go through then what? Right, I was aware of DT having controlled interest of Tmob but if they merge with Sprint, analysts are saying the Feds likely wouldn't allow DT to have controlling interest of Sprint for various reasons.
If the ATT deal doesn't go through, DT might dump off Tmob to either Sprint or possibly Google and get out of US market. Tmob likely won't be going it alone at this point. | |
|  |  |  |  quetwoThat VoIP GuyPremium join:2004-09-04 East Lansing, MI | Re: If it doesn't go through then what? Doubt anybody would want to touch the big, hot mess that is Sprint/Nextel. Right now they have such a huge debt load that anybody who buys them would be stuck with a network that is extremely aged, lots of long-term contracts they can't get out of (goverment, etc), one of the largest telecom lawsuit resolution cases in US history (800 Mhz rebanding for public safety radios), and a shrinking customer base. Sprint/Nextel still runs two competing networks and has no plans to merge or migrate either network. | |
|  |  |  |  |  | | Re: If it doesn't go through then what? On the latter two parts.. Sprint is not shrinking anymore and they do now have a specific plan to get off iDen , which will execute starting later this year.
As far as the debt, yeah, who would want that. It's $14B. That's why it's likely Sprint would otherwise acquire/'merge' with Tmob, and no one acquiring Sprint. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: If it doesn't go through then what? BTW, Sprint is hiring the CFO from Qwest, who specializes in mergers. He was specifically hired by Qwest to handle the merger. Sprint is getting him as soon as the Qwest/Centurylink deal closes.
Sounds like Sprint is seriously looking to make some kind of move for real this time. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  | | Sprint has had plans for YEARS now (5) to get rid of iDEN only to end up keeping it around. The fact is Sprint is in no hurry in getting rid of anything and the only thing going around by many many people (including quotes that are miss quoted- on purpose) is rumors. Sprint has never said anything about pulling out of Clear- which many claim; especially on here. Sprint has NEVER said anything about going to LTE- which again- claims again which are from "sources that are ALWAYS wrong at Sprint. Sprint is in no hurry to do anything and is only making the move to small base stations to save $$$$ when powering them. They also can move much of the operations back to a data center instead of having active equipment in the field doing all the work.
When Sprint moves away from iDEN Hell will freeze. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  NObamaPremium join:2005-11-09 Nashua, NH | Re: If it doesn't go through then what? You are uninformed. Sprint is in the process of rebuilding their entire network. The decommissioning of iDEN will start as each market nears or completes the upgrade. The work has started, so it looks like hell will be getting colder soon. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ | Re: If it doesn't go through then what? said by NObama:You are uninformed. Sprint is in the process of rebuilding their entire network. Good for them. On a clear day if I climb a tree I can see the Empire State Building but there is no Sprint 3G let alone 4G coverage available. Even if they buy Clearwire there still won't be mobile broadband coverage.
Don't worry the FCC is demanding they be permitted to leech off Verizon's network; four bars in my house. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  NObamaPremium join:2005-11-09 Nashua, NH Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
·magicjack.com
| Re: If it doesn't go through then what? Not every carrier covers the same area. So, if Sprint doesn't work for you, get another service. 4G is currently provided by Clearwire, which is not run by Sprint, though Sprint owns more than 50% of it. If you are paying for Sprint service, it is probably because they are a cheaper option to AT&T and VZW. One reason Sprint is cheaper, is due to their smaller footprint. You want better service, then pay for it. Simple. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ | Re: If it doesn't go through then what? said by NObama: One reason Sprint is cheaper, is due to their smaller footprint. You want better service, then pay for it. Simple. I do. My comment was in response to "Sprint is in the process of rebuilding their entire network". | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  1 edit | Clear's implementation of 4G (WiMax) is mostly a ground wave. It can work poorly if your high up in an office building or too close to a tower. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ | Re: If it doesn't go through then what? said by ISP1 :Clear's implementation of 4G (WiMax) is mostly a ground wave. It can work poorly if your high up in an office building or too close to a tower. As I said on a clear day if I climb a tree I can the the Empire State Building. Only Verizon, T-Mobile and at&t offer 3G broadband service I can get in my house. Darn Verizon's 4G is a few towers away; like their FiOS a few poles away.  | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO | Curious about this. Do you have any links that explain this? Does Clear somehow focus the signal in a specific plain with a directional antenna? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  | | Uh, just to show how much you don't know, Sprint gained customers last quarter.
Most everything else you said is equally wrong. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| Re: If it doesn't go through then what? T-Mobile seems to bring some European practices to the US. They are the only carrier that makes it easy for you to sign up without a contract. They are considerably cheaper than the other three and don't lock down their phones or cripple any of the features contained within them.
For the life of me I can't figure out why DT would feel a compelling need to exit the US market. Are they hard up for cash or something? T-Mobile USA would seem to be a cash cow and it's got nowhere to go but up.
Vodaphone would be a logical choice though if DT really does want to exit the market. Verizon wants full ownership of VZW (or should I say the cellco partnership?) badly enough that I bet they'd pay handsomely for it. That money could then be used to buy T-Mobile USA. Seems like a win-win for everybody and a much better option than allowing AT&T to assimilate the last remaining budget priced national carrier.
But what do I know.... | |
|  |  |  |  |  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO kudos:1 | Re: If it doesn't go through then what? DT wants to stay, but doesn't want to invest any money into the market. They want to use the earnings from TMO USA to pay off DT debts. It looks they wanted to sell for cash, plus get 8% equity in ATT for continued income to pay off debts without having to worry about further expenses for building out a network.
Of course, if the deal doesn't go through they get valuable AWS spectrum, and $3bil in cash which could definitely help pay for network improvements to increase competitiveness. So either way DT wins. -- "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 | |
|
 |  |  batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ | said by Crookshanks:The one that confuses me is why Vodaphone sticks around. They have no control at all over Verizon Wireless and Verizon has repeatedly expressed a desire to buy them out. Easy they just have to sit back and have Verizon deposit checks in their bank. I would not mind owning 49% of Verizon and just cash checks wile they do all of the work. | |
|  |  |  | | T-mobile USA has five years of declining profits and recent subscriber losses. DT faces an uphill battle in turning around the company.
Then add in the costs of funding an LTE upgrade which probably hits the tens of billions and the value isn't there anymore running T-mobile USA.
DT paid a fortune for Voicestream. The article i read indicated they wouldn't be making a whole lot at AT&T's price. They basically get out with their shirts and can reinvest the money in their european operations.
The only other company we know of that was interested in T-mobile USA is Sprint and they couldn't offer as much as AT&T.
Our prospects as T-mobile USA customers without an AT&T merger aren't that bright. We are screwed either way but may gain better coverage with AT&T and possible grandfathering of old plans. Nextel customers are leaving Sprint in droves so it's not like we'll get treated a whole lot better merging with them.
The hating on AT&T is completely fair, but i think overall most consumers underestimate how bad things could get if T-mobile USA isn't picked up by a financially stable company. | |
|
 |  AlcoholPremium join:2003-05-26 Climax, MI kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by xenophon:Tmob merges with Sprint or bought by Google?
I suspect DT will get out of the US market if they can't get a controlling interest. Google will not get into the telecom business. -- I found the key to success but somebody changed the lock. | |
|  |  |  | | Re: If it doesn't go through then what? I don't know if it's true (I'd lean probably not) but there were rumblings on Wall St that Google did make an offer for Tmob and ATT offered much more. | |
|  |  |  | | totally agree on google never being interested in this big of of an infrastructure buy.
Google does everything solely to protect search and advertising business. Even the Kansas City fiber buildout is expected to be a next generation test bed to protect their search and advertising. Plus they get some good PR out of it with the public. Anything to get people to look away from their near monopoly on search traffic. | |
|
 |  | | Why is Google always mentioned when it comes to buying a carrier? Google has no interest in running anything. You have a better chance of someone like MS, Apple, or even Netflix becoming a WISP. | |
|  |  |  | | Re: If it doesn't go through then what? If it's true that Google made an offer for Tmob before ATT outbid them, that would be why. | |
|  |  |  |  | | Re: If it doesn't go through then what? IF. Big IF there. I guess you believe they actually wanted that spectrum they inflated the price of as well? Sorry dude, Google doesn't care to run anything where they have responsibility to provide any kind of support. | |
|
 |  |  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus join:2001-06-20 Cheyenne, WY Reviews:
·CenturyLink
1 edit | said by StBrandon :You have a better chance of someone like MS, Apple. I keep hearing the Apple thing too. I answer by saying Apple did not get where they are by being stupid. Right now they are selling their products in gigantic numbers, in March they sold 2.6 million iPad 2's making billions of dollars why should they saddle themselves with a ball and chain that T-Mobile would be. It is like the 1849 gold rush in California. It wasn't the gold prospectors that made the money it was the people who supplied the gold prospectors with shovels, gold pans, and Levi's that raked it in. Apple supplies the devices, Makes the moola, stays out of all of the bad blood flowing between the customers and wireless providers. Apple knows what side of this game their bread is buttered on. | |
|  |  |  |  rmdir join:2003-03-13 Chicago, IL | Re: If it doesn't go through then what? As bad as Google screwed up the whole "after the sale" customer support with my Nexus 1, I'd just as soon they stay out of the wireless market. Not that I needed it, but I read enough horror stories about the average Joe not getting any kind of help from them. | |
|  |  |  |  |  | | Re: If it doesn't go through then what? If Google were to buy any company that requires customer service, they should just do it as a holding company (that can influence google services) and not directly operate it. They are not customer service oriented company at all.
With the Google Gb Net thing in KC.. they apparently plan to let ISPs ride on top of it and let them handle the customer service. TWC used to do this, offering RoadRunner, AOL and I think Earthlink. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | I doubt Apple would do it as well. It was just an example of a rich company that came to mind. | |
|
 |  | | Please Google buy Tmo and Sprint. | |
|
 MoracCat god join:2001-08-30 Riverside, NJ kudos:1 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Money > Truth Since when has truth ever mattered in acquisitions or mergers. Lobbying will trump truth any day. If Comcast can acquire Universal I don't see any issues (for AT&T) with AT&T acquiring T-Mobile.
The main issue with the DirecTV-Dish merger is it left no satellite providers left, so there would basically have been a monopoly. That won't happen with cell phone providers if this acquisition goes through since Sprint and Verizon will still be there.
-- The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. | |
|  |  See 9 replies to this post | |
 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| You can say this about any merger.... How many mega-mergers have we seen of late? Delta buying Northwest, United buying Continental, Southwest buying AirTran, Comcast buying NBC, new AT&T buying BellSouth, and even Verizon buying Alltel. Sirius bought XM and that eliminated all competition in that market, yet the deal still passed.
It's obvious the Obama admin is content with letting the big get bigger. | |
|  |  See 6 replies to this post | |
 | | Never Was A Crisis Where is the FCC and Regulators on getting FACTS about spectrum use? This is criminal! | |
|  |  sparks join:2001-07-08 Little Rock, AR | Re: Never Was A Crisis we are talking AT&T and the government. WHAT does the TRUTH have to do with it???
They will just make some noise to make sure AT&T knows who to throw the money at and that will be the end of it. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD | But It Won't If there was precedence for such mergers being rejected, then yes, "the truth" could kill this deal.
But it won't, as the government is more than happy to cheerfully approve any merger that comes along. This deal is as good as done. -- "Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|  |  aphor join:2006-01-31 Chicago, IL | Re: But It Won't
What about the history of AT&T?
BTW: "Net Neutrality" is about commercial censorship. How would you like 100Mbps "Internet" that you could only use for pay per view? Guess what: it's a cap too! | |
|
 Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| history lesson at&t divested parts of cingcular wirless in exchange for Bell South...
in the end, they didn't sacrifice any of cingular's core assets to get Bell South including the wireless footprint. in later years with verizon's expansion and intro of Metro PCS & Clearwire allowed AT&T to reacquire the entire major metro footprint again in the space of 3-5 years.
fast forward to 2011, and AT&T wants to become the BIGGEST wireless carrier in the country (with a track record of shoddy service and abuse of the customer as far back as cingular & before).
on the one hand you have large corporations which OWN the governments, but you have the citizens who vote for these schmuck politicians... tip the balance too far in corporate interests and voters just might flush key party figures down the tube in the next election cycle. perhaps if ONE party was in power, they'd know which palms to grease to get it through, but it's not that simple now. add to the fact that timing isn't great and you have the fact that tmobile set up at&t to spend gobs of money only to fail. very savvy.
now the hardware vendors & tower companies can have a field day with AT&T and make them spend more than they want to... | |
|  | | There is more at stake here than just T mobile gone ATT will control the airwaves, internet installations, wireline installations, just as they did in the 80s. This deal is done, I hate to say it, but certain things will have to be adopted. ATT wireless is being held up by iPhone and hostage by the platform as well. They are acquiring a potential of 34 million new iPhone customers. (reality, now, but the potential of EVERYone wanting an iPhone does exist). This will change the bottom line for ATT et. al. They get a host of Android technology and will really control the direction of android on GSM networks. Internet will be capped further,etc, etc, etc.. y | |
|  | | This is an acquisition not a merger of sorts... If the deal is not approved what then? DT doesn't want to do business here anymore.
Would it be worse for T-Mobile customers to just sit in limbo while DT plans their next move? You can be assured that through all the confusion DT would stop network buildouts, customer service would collapse and employees of the company would be bolting to other industries.
Let's be clear. I can't stand AT&T anymore than anyone else on this board but it was DT (T-Mobile) that sold out. A company should not be forced to operate a business just because grass roots organizations want the buyout blocked.
I'd rather see the acquistion go through but with some major concessions from the buyer. Nobody will trust T-Mobile anymore otherwise. | |
|  |  Prissy join:2011-04-07 Marietta, GA | Re: This is an acquisition not a merger of sorts... They could find a buyer that hasn't screwed me over repeatedly  | |
|  |  |  | | Re: This is an acquisition not a merger of sorts... if there were tons of buyers lining up for T-mobile USA, then DT would be all over it. Instead all they got was Sprint for a competing offer and that's a heavily damaged company that couldn't step up with a higher offer.
Unfortunately AT&T is the only bidder that gains a lot from the merger due to cost savings. It's peanuts for AT&T, but a huge nightmare for every other possible bidder. | |
|
 |  Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| said by airtouch25:If the deal is not approved what then? DT doesn't want to do business here anymore.
Would it be worse for T-Mobile customers to just sit in limbo while DT plans their next move? You can be assured that through all the confusion DT would stop network buildouts, customer service would collapse and employees of the company would be bolting to other industries.
Let's be clear. I can't stand AT&T anymore than anyone else on this board but it was DT (T-Mobile) that sold out. A company should not be forced to operate a business just because grass roots organizations want the buyout blocked.
I'd rather see the acquistion go through but with some major concessions from the buyer. Nobody will trust T-Mobile anymore otherwise. Your speculation is flawed to think that AT&T is the best solution if Tmobile closes up shop (within a year). Metro PCS and Clearwire are decent alternatives to at least 75% of tmobile customer base. The footprint overlaps with a greater % than that. There is also the possibilty that cable companies might do a mega deal to become a national wireless carrier. AT&T is not a white-knight savior the PR spin weaves it to be. AT&T is willing to spend $39 billion on towers and gear so that they dont' have to spend $239 billion on towers and gear. A nice $200 billion in savings (or there abouts) if the deal doesn't go through. Gear companies and tower companies don't like dealing with AT&T.. so they can afford to gouge them due to their record for being CHEAP on network buildouts & upgrades so they suffer from high price syndrome.. buy less, pay more.
** Now $200 billion wouldn't be so bad if wireless wasn't their only business... they have the entire 35% of the wireline (telco market share... 25% if you include cable companies) business as well. Same deal here too.. stingy on upgrades and suffer the consequences of that in higher build costs. DSL tecnology will get more expensive as fuel prices go higher then they'll wish they bought more FTTP equipment earlier as it will be the same as the dsl stuff as energy costs skyrocket the rest of the year. Now you know why AT&T and Apple were a good fit... choose one size fits all and stick with it, regardless if customers dislike the direction of the business plan.
BTW, there is a growing probability that the merger won't go through. At least, regulators aren't keen on stirring the political pot so at best it's *ON HOLD* until the budget issue gets past a logjam. How long will TMobile wait? | |
|  |  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO kudos:1 | said by airtouch25:If the deal is not approved what then? DT doesn't want to do business here anymore.
Would it be worse for T-Mobile customers to just sit in limbo while DT plans their next move? You can be assured that through all the confusion DT would stop network buildouts, customer service would collapse and employees of the company would be bolting to other industries.
Let's be clear. I can't stand AT&T anymore than anyone else on this board but it was DT (T-Mobile) that sold out. A company should not be forced to operate a business just because grass roots organizations want the buyout blocked.
I'd rather see the acquistion go through but with some major concessions from the buyer. Nobody will trust T-Mobile anymore otherwise. DT gets valuable AWS spectrum, plus $3bil in cash if the deal doesn't go through. DT has never said they wanted out of the market. They just don't want to put any more money into it. TMO is low on spectrum. They're still making money though. And with more spectrum, they could increase deployments, and pay for it using ATT's cash. That's certainly an attractive option for a company like DT. -- "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 | |
|
 | | WT$ You would THINK our brilliant Government would have figured out from all these "TO BIG TO FAIL" companies they had to bail out with OUR money that making at&t this big, or TO BIG TO FAIL would be the very very wrong move. | |
|  |  | | Re: WT$ Comparing the telecom and banking industries is apples and oranges.
The effect of a major bank failing is much different than the effect of AT&T or VZ failing. | |
|  |  |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK | Re: WT$ They can't fail. They can just pwn consumer's wallets. | |
|
 | | I def dont want to see this deal and i have AT&T and live in the state where there strong hold is (Texas), all i gotta say i dont want them to buy t-mobile, anyone else but AT&T, heck google get into this haha, but seriously, AT&T is lieing and everyone knows, and just looking at their history in the past, i dont see anything comein good from this besides $$$ for them, which they are already getting with the caps.., dont get me wrong wireless caps im for, but you know theres gotta be a limit to this company, theyve changed the whole internet this last year, and want to do more since mainly they help make the net nuetrality rules, this company is out of countrol with greed | |
|  BiggA join:2005-11-23 EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| Tower density I hope this goes through, and as fast as possible. The tower density will help AT&T out hugely when they convert T-Mobile's network to totally PCS 3G.
OTOH, since T-Mobile does have a nationwide license in both PCS and AWS, I'd love to see Google running T-Mobile as the Android carrier. With the AT&T roaming agreement and NAM/AWS phones, it could actually be a pretty sweet deal, since Google wouldn't screw around with Android, and they would be much more fair and open than any other carrier. | |
|  | | Apple buys TM ATT TM deal bombs. Apple buys TM and becomes their own MNO | |
|  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Re: Apple buys TM said by Elvisimprsnt :ATT TM deal bombs. Apple buys TM and becomes their own MNO .. just throwing things out in the dark and taking a baseless stab at something? 
.. Apple has never shown any interest in becoming the owner of a highly competitive and expensive wireless communication provider.
A very well written post exists above in this very thread that explains why apple will never provide the actual service that their devices use. | |
|
 | | Since we each have other theories I will add the insane one (that has as much of a chance happening). Sprint buys Tmo, Sprint-Tmo is bought out by Apple. AT&T feels threatened, activates their deathstar. Apple responds by building the iFighter. All craziness ensues and remade into an episode of Family guy. | |
|  | | Why do they need 'justification'?
They're responsible to their shareholders and customers, not the general population at large and shouldnt be responsible to the Federal government unless they're found guilty of breaking some federal law.
im sick and tired of these statists demanding control over private-sector businesses instead of over the government officials and politicians granting them exclusive privileges and/or blocking competition. | |
|  |  sparks join:2001-07-08 Little Rock, AR | Re: Why do they need 'justification'? They're responsible to their shareholders and customers
customers ROFL | |
|
 RickPremium,MVM join:2001-02-06 Waterbury, CT | As one of AT&T's harshest critics on this website the last few years and as a long time T-Mobile customer who has been VERY happy with T-Mobile and who would REALLY hate to see my carrier switched over to AT&T...I thought I'd say this.
Honestly? Despite all the above and the fact it pains me to even say it...
I think the deal should be allowed.
This country is based on many freedoms and those freedoms extend to businesses as well. And whatever AT&T's reasons or excuses are I think that if A&T and T-Mobile management and shareholders agree that this is the best course of action for them to take..then they should be allowed to do so.
If this was Ma Bell of the olden days..when there was no alternatives to landlines or essentially to communication itself except via AT&T..then that would be a different story. But today..people have numerous choices in both cell providers and landlines and VOIP for that matter.
An AT&T - T-Mobile combination will remove some of that choice..but in the cell phone space there is still Sprint and Verizon and Virgin Mobile and whatever prepaid providers one can find out there among what seems to be many these days.
And I think that that..above whatever you and I may think about this..should really be the driving force behind government intervention into what is private business. Because when you start stepping on that folks..I think we're going a bit too far in terms of what we allow our government to control.
Should there be whatever reasonable conditions and safeguards put on any deal? Absolutely.
But should the deal be allowed? Absolutely as well.
As for me, I would then have to give it some serious thought as to whether I'd stay with them as a provider. And, because they're essentially just a 2nd backup cell phone i've kept having gone to another non AT&T provider anyway last year I might not. I kept them for the convenience and because I liked T-Mobiles service and my old number on that. But that can change as well.
But that would be MY choice and decision to make then. And my choice and decision nor anyone elses..shouldn't be the deciding factor in allowing this deal to happen.
And so..AT&T? From me to you and all the heartache I put you through on this website with the whole dsl and Uverse issues.. this time I have to side with you.
And I hereby christen your new name to be T N' T
 | |
|  |  NObamaPremium join:2005-11-09 Nashua, NH Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
·magicjack.com
| Re: As one of AT&T's harshest critics on this website the last AT&T is buying out their lowest price national competitor. How is this a good thing?
None of your reasons are valid, in my opinion. AT&T is seeking to once again monopolize an industry. Buy them out, or force them out of business. That's the American way? Really? Just close your eyes and preach about freedoms, and not look at the consequences of such a deal?
None of the prepaid carriers offer "full service" deals comparable to the "Big 4". When you go prepaid, can you get a deal on any of these that will save you over the "Big 4" >> Voice - yes, texting - maybe, data - NO, BUNDLE all 3 - NO.
For two phones, where else can you find Unlimited Voice, Text and FAST Data (5GB per line) for $140.00 per month? You can't. None of the othe providers come close.
There is no replacement for T-Mobile, though AT&T says there is. Metro PCS - hahahaha, Cricket - yeah right, US Cellular - $$$$.
I have T-Mobile service, and I think it works great in the Boston area. I travel a lot, and have no issues to speak of, except that their non-roaming footprint isnt that great. | |
|  |  |  NC4DX join:2011-03-07 Glenwood, NC | Re: As one of AT&T's harshest critics on this website the last Any pre-paid carrier will give you all three for $50/month per phone (except Verizon MVNOs don't have that much data). I have 2000 texts and unlimited data for $21.45/month. I could get unlimited texts for $3.50 more but I don't need it. | |
|  |  |  |  atuarreHere come the drumsPremium join:2004-02-14 College Station, TX | Re: As one of AT&T's harshest critics on this website the last said by NC4DX:Any pre-paid carrier will give you all three for $50/month per phone (except Verizon MVNOs don't have that much data). I have 2000 texts and unlimited data for $21.45/month. I could get unlimited texts for $3.50 more but I don't need it. Virgin Mobile is owned by Sprint. So you can't count them as an option. Cricket and Metro, I believe own their own towers but they really have an awful lineup of phones and features.
ATT will raise prices. And most T-Mobile customers, I feel, will go to either Sprint of Verizon. | |
|  |  |  |  NObamaPremium join:2005-11-09 Nashua, NH Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
·magicjack.com
| @NC4DX - got any links to those Unlimited Everything prepaid deals for $50/month? Best I have seen for "Unlimited"data is 2GB/month.
Also, if you noticed, I was referring to providers with a national footprint. This means an MVNO with one ofthe Big 4, not Metro or Cricket. The latter may have good localized footprints in some metro areas, but they are by no means national carriers. | |
|
 NObamaPremium join:2005-11-09 Nashua, NH Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
·magicjack.com
2 edits | This deal is bad for everyone except AT&T and.... the politicians who receive the fat donations to their campaign funds.
Consumers will lose the lowest price option for a true national carrier.
Vendors and suppliers will end up cutting thousands of jobs, and billions in spending each year will disappear. T-Mobile is the smallest of the "Big 4", and has to constantly build out their network to keep pace with the other three national players. If AT&T buys them, all T-Mobile capex will be eliminated (billions of $$$ each year), and AT&T spending will decrease as they migrate T-Mobile cell sites to offload capacity and fill "holes" in their existing network.
I have worked in the wireless infrastructure industry for a long time, and I can tell you for certain that thousands of good paying jobs will go away, and likely never come back. All the construction companies, equipment suppliers, and associated consulting frms will either shrink or shut down.
This is going to be bad - very, very bad. Luckily, I am not dependent on either T-Mobile or AT&T to make ends meet, but most of my colleagues are.
Just say "NO". | |
|  | | Look at past buy-outs Being both a Cingular customer when they purchased AT&T Wireless, and a Verizon customer when they purchased Alltel, I know from experience that this will be bad, bad, bad for EVERYBODY.
In both of those buyouts, the prices of everything went up within the first year (only a matter of months for Verizon). After the Alltel buyout was approved, many of Verizon's consumer-friendly programs were canceled (i.e., New Every Two, Worry-Free Guarantee, the "Multi-FRU" program where you could get a different phone if yours malfunctioned and was replaced 3 times), plus they quickly increased the monthly cost and deductible on phone insurance. I could go on and on. The same happened with Cingular, although that was so long ago I can't remember every single thing they changed... but I know it was enough where I dropped my service after having a love affair with the company for years. I do remember them tripling the cost of pay-per-use internet and, for a while, they were the only carrier charging $14.99 for additional lines.
Did anyone notice that last week, AT&T already began raising prices by increasing early upgrade prices? Just wait until the T-Mobile buyout is approved.
Also some food for thought... Up until the Cingular/AT&T Wireless buyout, there was definite competition in the wireless industry. Afterwards and ever since, the big wireless carriers have pretty much had the same pricing. When one raises prices, the other does, too. Do you think this will get better as competition decreases?
Just for a clarification, I left Verizon last year and joined T-Mobile. What a relief not to give those crooks my money anymore... But I despise AT&T much more and don't know what to do when this buyout is complete. | |
|  linicxCaveat EmptorPremium join:2002-12-03 United State Reviews:
·CenturyLink
| The merger is probably a scam The truth is AT&T does not provide very good cell service in a city; it still doesn't. It provide grease to keep pols happy, blarney to feed unhappy customers while it feeds bs to its stockholders. The prepaid AT&T just doesn't work in rural America.
T-Mobile has great customer support; AT&T does not. T-Mobile was average in larger rural - which was better than AT&T, but worse away from the cities. They are both pathetic in US Cellular areas; but US Cellular signal is mostly non-functioning in Verizon/Sprint areas.
I've been there, done it and have the shirt to prove it. I wore it from Chicago to NOLA and Chicago to SoCal several times using AT&T and T-Mobile. When I talk about rural I'm talking about places like Jay, OK, Palo Duro, TX, Bath, IL, Winslow, AZ, Elephant Butte, NM, Francesville, LA.. I'm talking about sitting outside of my best friend's house and could not use T-Mobile because she lives in an area serviced by US Cellular. Her US. Cellular phone doesn't work in my house 15 miles away.
Then I went to Sprint, bought a really good phone and discovered CDMA. The only place I do not get a signal now is int the mountains were there are no towers. I'm through most of it in less than five minutes. I can sit outside my friend's house and talk all day.
Now I am faced with smart phones, net books and tablets. I don't like the way Sprint is going is some of their future plans. I don't want a phone loaded with Google, Google Apps or anything else Google. And I'm not terribly happy with the quality of some of the other feature rich phones.
Spring 4G does work and work well where it is implemented so says a friend of mine who travels every week. He had cell service from AT&T when he lived Seattle. I sold him on Sprint and he watched a Cub game tonight in Atlanta on on his Droid phone.
My solution to whole thing was to buy a iPhone. I'm in the middle of nowhere, 50 miles from any city worth talking about. But it is in the middle of Verizon towers and most everyone I know are VZN users. I actually have a better voice call than with the Sprint phone, but I attribute that to the phone rather than VZN as I am 10 miles from the nearest tower. . .
-- Mac: No windows, No Gates, Apple inside | |
|  jfmezeiPremium join:2007-01-03 Pointe-Claire, QC kudos:22 | Big picture needs to be looked at Forget AT&T and its image problems for a minute.
If the USA government allows T-Mobile to disapear (because that is what really happens when it is bought by a bigger fish), then this leaves the USA with 3 main carriers. Is that enough to maintain a competitive environment ?
If the environment becomes insufficiently competitive, what will the USA government have to do ? Will it need to regulate them ?
Ideally, of DT wants out, it should find someone who is not already a wireless carrier to buy T-Mo USA. Dt would get the cash it needs, and the USA would retain 4 main wireless networks.
So this shouldn't be about whether Tmobile goes to AT&T or Sprint. It should be whetyer the USA really wants to drop down to 3 carriers only and if it feels there would still be sufficient competition. | |
|  | | Politics.. is the key. AT&T owns enough Congressmen to force the FCC to approve the deal. Considering the millions that AT&T slips to Congress, it's a wonder it hasn't sailed right through. Guess they have to go through the motions. | |
|
 | |
|
|