I don't work in the telecom industry anymore, but I used to train cell phone carriers how to use their backbone hardware.
A good friend of mine is still in the industry, running his own company that contracts (and takes sub contracts) from the big 3 (Verizon likes to keep stuff in house when they can). For cell site service & upgrades.
So now that we've established that I do know what I am talking about...
I work in the financial services industry. I look at things like annual reports everyday.
Look at all the wireless telecom reports and you will see they are bleeding cash. Yes, their profits are up, but those profits are spent on R&D and new build outs.
Lol. You push pencils for a living. You've never worked in the industry, but I will hear you out anyway. Sometimes it is good to get a different perspective on things.
The AT&T Mobility unit of AT&T is still at a cash shortfall for their backhaul upgrades and their new LTE network.
This is why they are focusing on buying T-Mobile. It will be cheaper to purchase them for their backhaul and infrastructure assets than it would be for them to build it out from scratch.
Buying T-Mobile will save them billions and they will actually make money selling off the redundant equipment. The FCC will make them sell it off anyway if the deal goes through.
If that is your brilliant analysis, then I wouldn't bet on you moving up from your current position anytime soon.
This topic is rich enough to write many articles on but let these points suffice:
1. AT&T is doing pretty well (url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T"]check for yourself[/url]. 7th largest company in the US. There are a lot of very large banks, oil companies, and corporate conglomerates that would kill to have their assets, revenue and operating income. They have 96 million customers... most of whom give them at least $50 a month. they are larger than Lehman Brothers, Citibank, Goldman Sachs and all of these other P.O.S. too-big-to-fail companies..... and AT&T is in 2nd place (very close to 1st) among 4 cellular providers. Sprint is less than 1/3 their size.
2. The T-mobile acquisition is about bandwidth leases. The airwaves are a limited resource that our government rents out to private companies. The more of these frequencies and bandwidth that you have under your control, the less there is for other companies to enter your market to compete with you. AT&T doesn't give a rat's butt about T-mobile subscribers. T-mobile and Sprint together would still only have about half as many subscribers as AT&T. What T-mobile does have are leases on 2100 and 1700 bands that no other national provider can use.
Who was the first national provider to introduce tiered data ? Verizon and AT&T introduced limited data within 3 months of one another. AT&T actually RAISED the non-contract price on the iPhone to match Verizon's... and lets not forget that tethering services 'magically' came to all 4 networks within one year of each other.
AT&T is a market and industry leader. Pretty much any move made by Verizon or AT&T is parroted by the other 4 national providers. Regional providers like Metro or Boost, etc are limited because the companies who aren't outright owned by Verizon/AT&T are limited what they can offer because they have to rent data and voice services on towers from the the big 4.
Trust me. My friend who runs the telecom company has a very short list of companies to choose from when he goes out to find projects. He is either working for Clear/Sprint, T-Mobile, or AT&T or he is subcontracted to a company working for one of them.
As U.S. anti-trust law defines it, no, no U.S. carrier meets that criteria.
Your perception and reality are obviously not in sync.
Lol, sounds like someone doesn't know their history. Verizon and AT&T are the last scions of Ma Bell. Shouldn't you already know that as a financial expert?
