Sprint Sues to Halt Merger of AT&T and T-Mobile USA

[MagnumOP]

Everything is a monopoly if you define the market narrowly enough. The mobile phone market comprises many competing technologies. Apple has a monopoly on OSX, following the same logic we should break up Apple and freely license OSX.

ATT would only be able to "overcharge" to the point that internationals do not buy different phones for use in the US. Consumers would still be free to choose between all existing carriers. And how many internationals does ATT target anyway. Also, I am sure it is a very minute part of its revenue that "overcharging" internationals would cause enough US residents to forego ATT for another US based carrier that ATT would not actually change its pricing structure.

It seems that Sprint is opposing the merger because it wants to reduce competition. Sprint says that it would be too hard to compete with a bigger ATT. The current market structure is easier for Sprint.

It would monopolize the GSM spectrum, meaning it would be impossible to take GSM phones to another carrier and no competition for international roaming (AT&T/T-Mobile merged could set any price they want since all international phones are GSM).

----------

Correct.

But you can also own 100% market share and not be a monopoly as well.

As to "basic economics", you do not actually have to have a literal 100% domination of a market to be considered a monopoly.

 

[rjohnstone]

Name one regional GSM carrier. The GSM carriers you are thinking of outside of AT&T and T-Mobile are probably MVNOs.

Cellular 1 (They offer both GSM and CDMA service depending on region)
NEP Wireless (NE Pennsylvania)
Simmetry
Terre Star
West Central (Texas)
West Link
ASTAC
And many more... all regional (not MVNO) carriers using GSM tech.
They roam on AT&T or T-Mobile, but own and operate their own towers in their regional coverage area.

 

[Winter Charm]

I really hope and wish for T-mobile to stay independent. I want them to have the iPhone 5, because their cheaper rates and great plans, combined with good service would propel them ahead of AT&T, hopefully sparking a price war. This is the same reason I want Sprint to get the iPhone - They have much cheaper plans.

 

[Unspeaked]

Cellular 1 (They offer both GSM and CDMA service depending on region)
NEP Wireless (NE Pennsylvania)
Simmetry
Terre Star
West Central (Texas)
West Link
ASTAC
And many more... all regional (not MVNO) carriers using GSM tech.
They roam on AT&T or T-Mobile, but own and operate their own towers in their regional coverage area.

How could anyone forget these industry heavyweights?!

 

[GorgonPhone]

sprint ned to just shut up and sell them self to verizon..lol

 

[Block]

Cellular 1 (They offer both GSM and CDMA service depending on region)
NEP Wireless (NE Pennsylvania)
Simmetry
Terre Star
West Central (Texas)
West Link
ASTAC
And many more... all regional (not MVNO) carriers using GSM tech.
They roam on AT&T or T-Mobile, but own and operate their own towers in their regional coverage area.

 

[rjohnstone]

How could anyone forget these industry heavyweights?!

Block was proved wrong on their existence so now you discount them because of their size.

They exist and are independent... that was the argument.

You want to change the target, go right ahead. But my point was proven.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

PS why does owen wilson always look like he's about to kiss some butt

I think he's caught the "duck face" virus that has spread so quickly over facebook and other social networks.

 

[Block]

Block was proved wrong on their existence so now you discount them because of their size.

They exist and are independent... that was the argument.

You want to change the target, go right ahead. But my point was proven.

It was more in reference to what you quoted previously, that the GSM spectrum would not be monopolized. And seeing as how all the carriers you listed depend on either T-Mobile or AT&T for coverage...

 

[Unspeaked]

The way I see this playing out is one of two things happens:

1. The merger goes through. Sprint is not nearly large enough to compete with AT&T or Verizon at that point. It goes belly-up or gets bought out by Verizon (logical choice with CDMA backbone). Either way, we're left with two major national carriers that control 75% or more of the market and scattered regional players.

2. The merger doesn't go through. Maybe T-Mobile goes bankrupt anyone as others are saying, which might lead to the scenario mentioned above. However, it would open up the door for Sprint to possibly buy T-Mobile as some have speculated and that combined entity would at least give us a solid third national player that isn't always on the verge of bankruptcy.

Not that it would be a huge number of national carriers or anything, but I'd rather have three nation-wide options to choose from than two...

----------

Block was proved wrong on their existence so now you discount them because of their size.

They exist and are independent... that was the argument.

You want to change the target, go right ahead. But my point was proven.

First of all, your point wasn't proven - they all rely heavily on AT&T.

Second, I wasn't even saying your point wasn't proven, I was just commenting on what a pathetic list of carriers that was. Nothing personal about it.

 

[rjohnstone]

It was more in reference to what you quoted previously, that the GSM spectrum would not be monopolized. And seeing as how all the carriers you listed depend on either T-Mobile or AT&T for coverage...

I never said it the spectrum would or wouldn't get monopolized.
I said it would likely not transfer hands.
The regional carriers already own their slice of spectrum for their areas.

The DOJ and the FCC could put restrictions on the deal if it goes through.
They did it to Verizon when they bought Alltel, so I see no reason why the same rules shouldn't be applied to the AT&T and T-Mobile deal.

----------

First of all, your point wasn't proven - they all rely heavily on AT&T.

Second, I wasn't even saying your point wasn't proven, I was just commenting on what a pathetic list of carriers that was. Nothing personal about it.

They do not rely on AT&T for their regional coverage areas.
Only for roaming.
That "pathetic list" as you put it was to prove a point, nothing personal either.

Cellular 1 is buying up regional carriers all over the place.
I suspect they will be the next national carrier to emerge.

 

[butterfly0fdoom]

Why don't Sprint and T-mobile merge?

They would be the first carrier to support GSM and CDMA in the US. This could be good and bad

Because the Sprint/Nextel merger was a disaster. A Sprint/T-mobile merger would probably be just as disastrous.

As for AT&T, really, how will a merger benefit any customer? T-mobile's 4G and AT&T's 4G technologies are not compatible.

T-Mobile doesn't have actual 4G, but the technology that both currently market as 4G is the same (only on different frequencies).

T-Mobile will not survive as a company for more than another year or two tops.
They will be parted out like an old car.
Then the DOJ can suck it when consumer choice gets limited by their misguided efforts.
Letting the merger move forward with conditions is a lot better for consumers than letting T-Mobile USA go bankrupt.
AT&T wins either way.

Exactly.

 

[Block]

I never said it the spectrum would or wouldn't get monopolized.
I said it would likely not transfer hands.
The regional carriers already own their slice of spectrum for their areas.

The DOJ and the FCC could put restrictions on the deal if it goes through.
They did it to Verizon when they bought Alltel, so I see no reason why the same rules shouldn't be applied to the AT&T and T-Mobile deal.

In reference to:

It would monopolize the GSM spectrum, meaning it would be impossible to take GSM phones to another carrier and no competition for international roaming (AT&T/T-Mobile merged could set any price they want since all international phones are GSM).

You said...

Not true... there are other GSM carriers in the US (regional) and the DOJ and FCC could set conditions on the merger to prevent AT&T from screwing them over on leasing agreements.

I guess I can give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were replying solely to a mid-sentence:

meaning it would be impossible to take GSM phones to another carrier

 

[rjohnstone]

In reference to:


You said...



I guess I can give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were replying solely to a mid-sentence:

I concede I was reading/commenting mid-sentence.
Thread moves too fast sometimes.

 

[Block]

I concede I was reading/commenting mid-sentence.
Thread moves too fast sometimes.

I do it all the time too.

 

[Glideslope]

love all the at&t bashing b/c they deserve it but I'm left scratching my head how verizon gets a pass here.... they're even bigger than at&t and arguably worst in throwing their weight around yet where was all the bitching when they last swallowed up a smaller carrier? If everyone wants more competition between smaller carriers then I think we need to stop ignoring the 800lb red gorilla in the room

It's Cool to bash at&t. Sorry for all those with issues. However, at&t has done one hell of a job in my area in the past 2 years.

If the acquisition irritates you over Monopolistic Ideology then fine. State that. I oppose the merger from this point alone.

at&t's signal lousy where you live? Guess what, you will have plenty of choice in a month.

Sprint is spotty where I live, and Verizon iPhone 4's download data half as fast as my GSM 4 on at&t.

It's Over Man. Stop Chasing Her. Choose another.

 

[janstett]

Let's just cut to the chase -- Verizon buys Splint and we have our inevitable duopoly.

 

[Tiger8]

how could anyone forget these industry heavyweights?!

lmao

 

[macUser2007]

Everything is a monopoly if you define the market narrowly enough....

ATT would only be able to "overcharge" to the point that internationals do not buy different phones for use in the US. Consumers would still be free to choose between all existing carriers....

Some BS in there....

Many of us travel and thus like to have a GSM phone. (IMO, the main reason for the different standards in the US -- and the resulting generally poor coverage compared to the rest of the world -- is that such incompatibility deters consumers from easily jumping between providers).

GSM is the main standard around the world and having only one national provider IS a monopoly.

Right now on T-Mobile I pay about 60% of what I used to pay on AT&T, for better service.

 

[MacNut]

I don't understand your comment. Sprint merged with Nextel and was able to provide much better service, better plans, while also keeping costs reasonable. AT&T merged with Cingular and brought nothing but negative changes to the table, why would you think anything different would come of a T-Mo take over?

Sprint's customer service went down hill after they bought Nextel and it just about destroyed them. Sprint used to be the best of all the carriers.

 

[janstett]

Correct. I don't want to see AT&T spending money talking about 4G when they still serve us with 2G. You got cash? Bring everybody up to 3G.

That may be exactly why they want T-mobile -- instant network upgrade and more capacity.

 

[alent1234]

Some BS in there....

Many of us travel and thus like to have a GSM phone. (IMO, the main reason for the different standards in the US -- and the resulting generally poor coverage compared to the rest of the world -- is that such incompatibility deters consumers from easily jumping between providers).

GSM is the main standard around the world and having only one national provider IS a monopoly.

Right now on T-Mobile I pay about 60% of what I used to pay on AT&T, for better service.

i have a 4 line family plan on AT&T and every time i price out everyone else it's always the same price. the only time it's cheaper is if you are single

 

[topmounter]

I am not looking forward to the inevitable national carrier duopoly.

If AT&T ends up owning T-mobile, then it is inevitable that Verizon will eventually acquire Sprint (willing, hostile or through bankruptcy).

AT&T and Verizon will continue to pump more and more money into Washington to increasingly tilt the playing field in their favor, making it harder and harder for the regional carriers (where the exist) to compete and stifling any new competitors from entering the market.

Hello MaMa Bell.

 

[MagnumOP]

ATT's only option is to buy new capacity(like T-Mobile) because there are too many restrictions on building new towers. There are several large cities in the US where it takes more than two years to build a new tower.

It is probably cheaper and faster for them to buy T-mobile than build out new infrastructure themselves, even given all of the legal hassle surrounding anti-trust issues.

That may be exactly why they want T-mobile -- instant network upgrade and more capacity.

 

[alent1234]

Why will the break up fee not have to be paid?

Way it stands right now, I see T-Mobile in a win/win situation. They get $3 billion if the merger fails to go through, and they get even more if it does.

Planning to switch back to T-Mobile after the merger goes through. I was a T-Mobile/iPhone user since launch until the iPhone 4 came out. I paid half as much month to month and had less dropped calls and the same reception.

it was reported last week that if the valuation of t-mo falls below a certain level there is no more break up fee. sprint getting the iphone but not t-mo will probably help that a lot.

wouldn't surprise me if apple is behind this as well. they are probably looking to deal with 3 carriers and not 2 huge ones