PDA

View Full Version : Verizon CEO Strongly In Favor of AT&T/T-Mobile Merger




MacRumors
Sep 22, 2011, 01:10 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/22/verizon-ceo-strongly-in-favor-of-attt-mobile-merger/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/09/5959281502_58d85632c4_m-150x225.jpg

Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam spoke out strongly in favor of AT&T's proposed merger with T-Mobile on Wednesday. The merger has been challenged in two separate lawsuits by the Department of Justice and Sprint.

McAdam, at an investor conference, said the AT&T/T-Mobile "match had to occur" because spectrum is such a valuable commodity. AT&T has proclaimed the need for increased spectrum (http://mobilizeeverything.com/facts/top-ten-benefits-of-combining-att-and-t-mobile) as the primary benefit behind the merger, saying "planned combination with T-Mobile by far the surest, fastest, and most efficient solution to the spectrum and capacity challenges we face."

As reported by BGR (http://www.bgr.com/2011/09/22/verizon-goes-to-bat-for-att-defends-t-mobile-merger/):
"I have taken the position that the AT&T merger with T-Mobile was kind of like gravity," McAdam told investors. "It had to occur, because you had a company with a T-Mobile that had the spectrum but didn't have the capital to build it out. AT&T needed the spectrum, they didn't have it in order to take care of their customers, and so that match had to occur." The CEO continued, noting that he has told the Federal Communications Commission and other government officials that blocking AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile without providing a solution to the current spectrum crunch will ultimately harm American consumers.(Photo courtesy Flickr/Fortune Live Media (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fortunelivemedia/5959281502/))

Article Link: Verizon CEO Strongly In Favor of AT&T/T-Mobile Merger (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/22/verizon-ceo-strongly-in-favor-of-attt-mobile-merger/)



DeaconGTG
Sep 22, 2011, 01:14 PM
Of course he's publicly in favor of it. If the merge is successful, Verizon's going to try to do the same with Sprint in the next few years. He can't have his words come back to haunt him.

But I'm sure there's a tiny part of him that would love to see AT&T fall flat on its face. :p

ravensfan55
Sep 22, 2011, 01:14 PM
AT&T and Verizon are like the US and USSR during WWI.

They look out for eachother but inside don't like eachother.

toomanyipods
Sep 22, 2011, 01:16 PM
A merger can only lead to a moderate exodus of customers from to Sprint and Verizon. With fewer players, it takes less effort to adjust to, or collude with competitors. Spectrum is an issue, but removing competition is definitely NOT the answer for consumers.

Muad'Dib
Sep 22, 2011, 01:17 PM
Duh!

chrmjenkins
Sep 22, 2011, 01:21 PM
Of course he's publicly in favor of it. If the merge is successful, Verizon's going to try to do the same with Sprint in the next few years. He can't have his words come back to haunt him.

But I'm sure there's a tiny part of him that would love to see AT&T fall flat on its face. :p

I think you pretty much nailed it. The best part is that the point he is making is actually valid in the way he is presenting it, so it's not not distorted and loaded with Verizon's own intentions baked in. AT&T could do better with more spectrum, no doubt. The part where he is cheering for AT&T's customers to have more bandwidth is a bit dubious though. :D

hcho3
Sep 22, 2011, 01:22 PM
AT&T and Verizon look like they are the biggest competitors in the US, but no... no no. They are also closest friends. They can just team up and be duopoly on wireless networks.

The Verizon was praised for having a good networks, but expensive pricing compare to T-mobile.


With t-mobile going bye-bye, they will be more happy because fewer people will make jump on other carriers.

DTphonehome
Sep 22, 2011, 01:27 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Of course he's publicly in favor of it. If the merge is successful, Verizon's going to try to do the same with Sprint in the next few years. He can't have his words come back to haunt him.


Exactly right.

DTphonehome
Sep 22, 2011, 01:29 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)


The part where he is cheering for AT&T's customers to have more bandwidth is a bit dubious though. :D

He stuck that in there to imply that the government should give telecoms more spectrum.

JangoFett124
Sep 22, 2011, 01:30 PM
Of course he's publicly in favor of it. If the merge is successful, Verizon's going to try to do the same with Sprint in the next few years. He can't have his words come back to haunt him.

But I'm sure there's a tiny part of him that would love to see AT&T fall flat on its face. :p

Agreed, with the addition being that if AT&T has less competition, so does Verizon.

wordoflife
Sep 22, 2011, 01:30 PM
No no no nooo

DakotaGuy
Sep 22, 2011, 01:35 PM
I agree. There is no way he would be against this because if it is not approved it limits Verizon's future acquisitions. If this deal is approved it helps set a precedent for the approval of a Verizon-Sprint merger. Make no mistake AT&T and Verizon want a duopoly so they can dictate pricing. Believe me we will pay big prices as customers in the future if these companies don't have strong smaller competition.

Bearxor
Sep 22, 2011, 01:36 PM
Of course he's publicly in favor of it. If the merge is successful, Verizon's going to try to do the same with Sprint in the next few years. He can't have his words come back to haunt him.

But I'm sure there's a tiny part of him that would love to see AT&T fall flat on its face. :p

I used to think that, but now I don't know what Verizon would do with Sprint. Sprint doesn't own all the 2.5ghz spectrum in their 4g markets so I don't think that would be worth their time. Sprint's 3G/Voice network is 1900mhz nationwide, whereas Verizon has a mixed 850/1900 system and they added a **** ton of spectrum where they were short in the Southeast by purchasing Alltel. I suppose they could add Sprint's 1900 to their mix but, from what I'm aware, Verizon isn't having as much of a crunch on their spectrum in nearly as many places as AT&T.

So other than customer acquisition, I'm just not sure what Sprint would give Verizon these days. It would be cheaper to simply let Sprint fail and then gobble up their customers wholesale during liquidation. I'm just not quite so keen on Verizon purchasing Sprint as I was maybe 18-24 months ago.

NorCalLights
Sep 22, 2011, 01:42 PM
T-Mobile is just about the only thing putting downward pressure on monthly plan prices in this country. Of course Verizon's CEO would be in favor of that pressure going away.

vitzr
Sep 22, 2011, 01:50 PM
removing competition is definitely NOT the answer for consumers.
I agree completely!

That's why it is so amusing to read all the Android bashing in this forum. The Apple worshipers want Apple to be the only phone. At least that is most certainly the way they come across.

They take it so personally it's hilarious. Just like Steve Jobs, they act like it's war. Lacking the life experience to fully realize what would happen if Android just went away, they are clueless.

Teh Don Ditty
Sep 22, 2011, 01:58 PM
AT&T and Verizon are like the US and USSR during WWI.

They look out for eachother but inside don't like eachother.

My history may be a bit fuzzy, but the US and USSR didn't become superpowers until the end of WWII.

kas23
Sep 22, 2011, 02:06 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

If this isn't evidence of the collusion between these two "competitors", then I don't know what is. Why would the CEO of AT&T's biggest competitor want AT&T to be strengthened?

C'mon Apple, put out a sub-$300 iPhone that doesn't need to be subsidized. These highway robbers called cellphone carriers can shove their 2 year contract.

takezo808
Sep 22, 2011, 02:36 PM
I agree. There is no way he would be against this because if it is not approved it limits Verizon's future acquisitions. If this deal is approved it helps set a precedent for the approval of a Verizon-Sprint merger. Make no mistake AT&T and Verizon want a duopoly so they can dictate pricing. Believe me we will pay big prices as customers in the future if these companies don't have strong smaller competition.


ATT-mobile and VeriSprint....? Then when those two companies merge it will be ATTVERISprinT-Mobile? :confused:

jlgolson
Sep 22, 2011, 02:37 PM
If this isn't evidence of the collusion between these two "competitors", then I don't know what is. Why would the CEO of AT&T's biggest competitor want AT&T to be strengthened?
It's not evidence of collusion.

AT&T and Verizon (and T-Mo, for that matter) all are in desperate need of new spectrum. AT&T's main argument behind T-Mobile is that it needs T-Mo's spectrum.

Verizon knows this and said that the DoJ needs to let this go through OR free up way more spectrum.

He's really making a deregulation argument more than anything else which is good for both VZ and T.

mikelegacy
Sep 22, 2011, 03:39 PM
As a Federal injunction, I wonder if there will be a public forum about this issue? It's a matter of a private company so I doubt the public will be allow to voice their concerns. If we could though, I know about a thousand people who would go to this meeting and tell the DoJ to shove it right back at ATT.

SeaFox
Sep 22, 2011, 04:06 PM
ATT-mobile and VeriSprint....? Then when those two companies merge it will be ATTVERISprinT-Mobile? :confused:
No it was just be "AT&T"

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/9947/atthistory.jpg

Fullsize version here: [link] (http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/9947/atthistory.jpg)

theelysium
Sep 22, 2011, 04:24 PM
Nice diagram!

accessoriesguy
Sep 22, 2011, 04:52 PM
they just want to destroy the lower priced carriers and absorb them themselves. Who needs another bipartisan?

Invincibilizer
Sep 22, 2011, 06:11 PM
My history may be a bit fuzzy, but the US and USSR didn't become superpowers until the end of WWII.

Agreed, it was in to WW2 and cold war when both USSR and the US were the world superpowers.

DakotaGuy
Sep 22, 2011, 06:17 PM
No it was just be "AT&T"

Image (http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/9947/atthistory.jpg)

Fullsize version here: [link] (http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/9947/atthistory.jpg)

One thing is for sure MaBell sure wasn't Humpty Dumpty. All the pieces are slowly coming right back together.

AT&T sat on a wall,
AT&T had a great fall.
All the regulation agencies and all the corporate men
Put AT&T together again.

kdarling
Sep 22, 2011, 06:40 PM
One thing is for sure MaBell sure wasn't Humpty Dumpty. All the pieces are slowly coming right back together.


Yes. Ma Bell coming together again is giving me deja vu visions of the 1967 movie, The President's Analyst (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_President%27s_Analyst).

daxomni
Sep 22, 2011, 06:47 PM
It's not evidence of collusion.
Can you please define what in your view WOULD meet your standard as evidence of collusion?

AT&T and Verizon (and T-Mo, for that matter) all are in desperate need of new spectrum.
Source?

powers74
Sep 22, 2011, 07:41 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

You know what? I say bring on the duopoly. All it will do is accelerate the innovation of VoIP.

DESNOS
Sep 22, 2011, 08:10 PM
No no no nooo

http://nooooooooooooooo.com/
http://nooooooooooooooo.com/vader.jpg

Bearxor
Sep 22, 2011, 10:06 PM
As much as I love that flow chart every time it pops up, it's not entirely accurate and is even misleading in some areas.

It's more accurate as a flowchart of naming than it is of ownership and even then some things just aren't QUITE right.

SeaFox
Sep 22, 2011, 10:32 PM
It's more accurate as a flowchart of naming than it is of ownership and even then some things just aren't QUITE right.

It really doesn't matter that the top USWEST isn't the same company as the bottom USWEST, or that SBC bought AT&T, even though the chart makes it look more like the opposite happened with the naming, the shear fact we went from one in 1984 to like two dozen in the mid nineties, and are now back down to only three speaks for itself.

It can also be argued the chart is worthless as an visual aid here because it's about POTS telephone lines moreso than wireless and doesn't even include VoiceStream -> T-Mobile or any of the other minor wireless carriers that exist today.

Tiger8
Sep 23, 2011, 07:25 AM
**Pretending to be surprised**

QCassidy352
Sep 23, 2011, 08:57 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

I support the merger. Here's why.
1) t-mo is dying. Merger or no, t-mo in the US is not long for this world. They're not competitive.
2) t-mo isn't keeping prices down. They're a lower cost option, but vzn and AT&T already only compete against each other on price. Check the history - it's when one of them moves on price/features that the other one does. Not when t-mo (or sprint, for that matter) moves.
3) the telecom industry is something of a natural monopoly. Not that we should have a true monopoly, but the fact is that it doesn't make sense to have four companies trying to blanket the US with towers. It's tremendously inefficient.
4) there will still be low cost competition in the form of sprint and increasingly competitive regional carriers.
5) selfishly, as an AT&T customer, I want the network upgrades this will bring.

nylonsteel
Sep 23, 2011, 09:45 AM
re original article

i'm not buying what this verizon guy says

its money driven - att and verizon support monopolies to profit and give us consumers less options

we need more competition - to drive prices down

QCassidy352
Sep 23, 2011, 10:27 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

we need more competition - to drive prices down

"More competion" is a nice rallying cry, but t mobile is not going to survive regardless. They are bleeding profits and customers at an alarming rate.

Tiger8
Sep 23, 2011, 11:51 AM
[SIZE=1]
4) there will still be low cost competition in the form of sprint and increasingly competitive regional carriers.

And what makes you think the increasingly competitive regional carriers use in order to give you competitive pricing? They lease bandwidth from one of the national networks. Do you honestly believe AT&T and Verizon will keep their prices? Those guys will get screwed up badly!

jnpy!$4g3cwk
Sep 24, 2011, 08:14 PM
Of course Verizon is in favor of it. Nowadays, big companies think a company can't be a "monopoly" if there are two companies. e.g. one PCS company, one GSM company. :rolleyes:

Imagine if we actually had a level playing field and actual competition.

mattwallace24
Sep 26, 2011, 08:28 AM
Time to break up Apple. They have over 85% of the tablet market. :D

chrysek
Sep 26, 2011, 09:46 AM
yeah its in his best interest if AT&T and T-Mobile would merge, why? fewer competitors, wasier to convince FCC in their favors when they have 2 voices against instead of 3... all those wireless providers are just thieves and they anly care about big profits :( No competition is something that they will always favor...