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

[macUser2007]

...

This country is so underserved in the rural areas, it isn't funny. And I cannot understand why....

Yep, even most Third World countries have way better coverage than the US.

It's because we have allowed the major carriers to segment the market and lock users in by utilizing incompatible technologies.

Which means that you can have a tower next to you, but it's just not the "right" tower. In major metropolitan areas there is tons of duplication and triplication of towers, but in rural areas they usually own the consumers based on the technology deployed in the area.

The whole system sucks.

 

[[DL]]

Are you serious?

 

[Omniblast]

AT&T is like the Taco Bell of the cellular business. If the Carrier Wars happen, all that will be left is AT&T.

Demolition man?

 

[cerote]

Good for you....

However, I used to pay about $250+ per month for two iPhones on AT&T, while now I pay about $140 per month for two Google Nexus S phones on T-Mobile. Now I also get more minutes and unlimited texts (200 texts with AT&T).

Get it?

Ok good for you then too. I pay 150$ for 2 iphones and 2 other lines. With those I get 700 minutes, which we don't use at all because I have the plan that gives you unlimited messaging and unlimited calls to any cell on any network. I have only a couple phones I rarely call that are land lines and even then I just added them to my A-List.

 

[fredfnord]

That matters even less than the fact that only one company makes iOS phones. Competition using different tech is still competition. Besides which, as others have pointed out, GSM is a dying technology, and will be irrelevant in the next few years.

Your confidence in the progress of technology is so touching.

Large chunks of the country are still only covered by EDGE for AT&T and T-Mobile. Including many reasonably populated areas. How long has EDGE been around? Major rollout started in 2003. (We aren't even that far with 4G now.)

There are still significant chunks of the country that only have GPRS... launched in 2000.

Given those predictions, it seems likely that in 2021, there will still be significant chunks of the country that are only covered by 3g. Certainly, 4g won't be widespread until 2014 or 2015, if then. (In fact, I'd be surprised if there was 4g outside of major population centers until well after that.)

But if we're looking at turning this into a duopoly, just AT&T and Verizon, let's look at the other major duopoly in the country right now, home internet access. Basically, in the vast majority of the US, including most cities, you can get either DSL or cable modem access. How long has the current DSL technology been around? Twelve years. And most people can't even get that due to line quality or old equipment: the vast majority of the country is only able to get 20-year-old connection technology. And cable modem is little better in most places.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Not necessarily. Considering how badly Sprint slipped and fell after buying Nextel and trying to integrate their networks, Sprint buying T-Mobile isn't necessarily any better than AT&T buying Sprint. Both situations involve T-Mobile customers needing new phones and, with Sprint increasing fees, will likely result in the competitive landscape not deviating much from its current state as far as pricing and "innovation" are concerned.

I know Sprint screwed up the Nextel merger but I was not talking about the network issues sprint would have if they got T-Mobile. I just was talking about the issue of why Sprint would be allowed to buy up T-Mobile before AT&T.

AT&T getting T-Mobile would effectively shove Sprint out of the market and it would be rip for the pickings. It just could not stand up to the two super powers known as Verizon and AT&T.

AT&T I do not see supporting a lot of T-Mobile techology like UMA. It was sad that Verizon and AT&T did not push UMA tech and instead shoved there own Micro cell crap.

 

[azurebat]

How do you mean "costs?" Do you mean the costs of the combined companies in providing service? Or do you mean the amount consumers pay?

AT&T possibly could, but I wouldn't be too sure - I've been through mergers, etc., and the cost savings have not come close to the predictions.

Besides, AT&T is trying to present the acquisition as one that will lower PRICES, not costs; that it will "improve" service; and thus be good for consumers. I don't think they can demonstrate that, because they will be eliminating one of the competitors in the market.

I think that was his point.


Everyone is so busy being pissed off and chasing the next squirrel that comes along.

 

[Naimfan]

I think that was his point.

Then he should have said so--the terms have very different meanings in the M&A space.

 

[azurebat]

Then he should have said so--the terms have very different meanings in the M&A space.

How do you know what he meant to say or not or do you think for all of us with your assumptions?

 

[macUser2007]

Ok good for you then too. I pay 150$ for 2 iphones and 2 other lines. With those I get 700 minutes....

You still don't get the point, which is that if T-Mobile is gone, the US will have ONLY ONE GSM provider, which is effectively a monopoly.

As to your paltry 700 minutes plan, it may work for you, but not for many others. It didn't work for me, so the 1500 minutes I get from T-Mobile for less $$ than you pay, is way better, IMO.

The point is, competition is generally better than a monopoly for most consumers.

 

[Naimfan]

How do you know what he meant to say or not or do you think for all of us with your assumptions?

You were the one who suggested the poster meant "price" when they wrote "costs."

So: How do YOU know what the poster meant to say?

 

[JAT]

Yep, even most Third World countries have way better coverage than the US.

It's because we have allowed the major carriers to segment the market and lock users in by utilizing incompatible technologies.

Which means that you can have a tower next to you, but it's just not the "right" tower. In major metropolitan areas there is tons of duplication and triplication of towers, but in rural areas they usually own the consumers based on the technology deployed in the area.

The whole system sucks.

You do understand that the US is really big, right? And those rural areas don't have that many people, so they should be the last built out. People here keep comparing to Europe, which mainland is about the same size as mainland US, but has what, 18x as many wireless carriers erecting towers?

----------

Then he should have said so--the terms have very different meanings in the M&A space.

No doubt. Depending on viewpoint, they have opposite meanings.

 

[butterfly0fdoom]

I know Sprint screwed up the Nextel merger but I was not talking about the network issues sprint would have if they got T-Mobile. I just was talking about the issue of why Sprint would be allowed to buy up T-Mobile before AT&T.

AT&T getting T-Mobile would effectively shove Sprint out of the market and it would be rip for the pickings. It just could not stand up to the two super powers known as Verizon and AT&T.

AT&T I do not see supporting a lot of T-Mobile techology like UMA. It was sad that Verizon and AT&T did not push UMA tech and instead shoved there own Micro cell crap.

There's no way the DOJ would let Sprint buy T-Mobile anyway; one of their arguments against AT&T buying T-Mobile is they believe T-Mobile should be kept alive on its own and not be acquired by another telecom. Period. This stance effectively kills off any other rationale for why Sprint may be better suited for buying T-Mobile since much of those arguments tend to focus on Sprint being smaller than AT&T.

Furthermore, Sprint, like T-Mobile, is also slipping, although at a less frightening pace. Regardless of whether T-Mobile goes away because it gets swallowed by AT&T or if it simply goes kaput, Sprint's screwed anyway. Spending all of their efforts trying to stop the merger is one of the dumbest things they could be doing IMO; they should be working on improving their network and their service. Sure, they rolled their "4G" service first, but even T-Mobile and AT&T's fake "4G" is (theoretically) faster. Both Sprint and T-Mobile are fumbling around with their "4G" plans with T-Mobile scraping by with what they have and Sprint being unable to make up their mind and develop a coherent roadmap. Sprint's problems are ultimately their own fault, and they're the ones putting themselves in danger.

As far as UMA goes, last I heard, it still wasn't supported on their Android phones; it seems as though T-Mobile isn't really continuing very strong with that technology.

 

[eye]

There's no way the DOJ would let Sprint buy T-Mobile anyway; one of their arguments against AT&T buying T-Mobile is they believe T-Mobile should be kept alive on its own and not be acquired by another telecom. Period. This stance effectively kills off any other rationale for why Sprint may be better suited for buying T-Mobile since much of those arguments tend to focus on Sprint being smaller than AT&T.

Furthermore, Sprint, like T-Mobile, is also slipping, although at a less frightening pace. Regardless of whether T-Mobile goes away because it gets swallowed by AT&T or if it simply goes kaput, Sprint's screwed anyway. Spending all of their efforts trying to stop the merger is one of the dumbest things they could be doing IMO; they should be working on improving their network and their service. Sure, they rolled their "4G" service first, but even T-Mobile and AT&T's fake "4G" is (theoretically) faster. Both Sprint and T-Mobile are fumbling around with their "4G" plans with T-Mobile scraping by with what they have and Sprint being unable to make up their mind and develop a coherent roadmap. Sprint's problems are ultimately their own fault, and they're the ones putting themselves in danger.

As far as UMA goes, last I heard, it still wasn't supported on their Android phones; it seems as though T-Mobile isn't really continuing very strong with that technology.

It ain't networks that are killing t mobile or sprint. It's the iPhone. If they get it and have lower prices, they will gain customers at an unprecedented pace. Without it come October, they are both done for.

 

[AbblePC]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A5313e Safari/7534.48.3)

Merge on, Only if and Only if, AT&T promises to make all areas that are Only Edge network 3G or better with the merger & within a 1yr period.
If they can't promise or guarantee that, then I say no merger.

PS lower prices too $400/ month for 4 iPhone family plan of which 1 of those phones is unlimited landline and mobile with text unlimited but $30/ data and the other 3 sharing 1400 minute plan with rollover minutes, just seems still too expensive.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

It ain't networks that are killing t mobile or sprint. It's the iPhone. If they get it and have lower prices, they will gain customers at an unprecedented pace. Without it come October, they are both done for.

minus the fact that we have proof that says other wise.
Verizon was gaining customers when it did not have the iPhone and the mass switching never happened. Hell there was not as insane of a run for the iPhone 4 than what was expected. The numbers if I remember right the market share in sells on Verizon are less than that than on AT&T.

AT&T has a larger chunk of the pie their smart phone buyer going iPhone than Verizon has on theirs.

Just figured I would point that out. Sprint at T-Mobile are losing customers for other reasons. T-Mobile is being hammered by coverage and Sprint by customer service and there coverage is not as good compared to the Big 2.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A5313e Safari/7534.48.3)

Merge on, Only if and Only if, AT&T promises to make all areas that are Only Edge network 3G or better with the merger & within a 1yr period.
If they can't promise or guarantee that, then I say no merger.

PS lower prices too $400/ month for 4 iPhone family plan of which 1 of those phones is unlimited landline and mobile with text unlimited but $30/ data and the other 3 sharing 1400 minute plan with rollover minutes, just seems still too expensive.

Not really possible to do. AT&T tower placement was orginally optimise for a TDMA type of network not a CDMA style. The CDMA towers have less range than the TDMA and have different set up. Edge was easier to build out but requires very different hardware.

I am using CDMA in the signal type not in the GSM vs CDMA.

 

[karma13612]

There's a simple answer to your question... MONEY.
The cost to build out in rural areas would make the service too expensive for many places.
It's not a simple matter of putting up a tower, you need the backhaul infrastructure in place to support the towers.
That requires cable... miles and miles of cable that has to be put on a pole or buried.
Microwave relays work as well, but the throughput degrades rapidly, so you need a lot of them.

I have watched the likes of TimeWarner take out full page ads and clog the airwaves for decades, trying to get more customers in the same geographic areas. They continue to raise their rates (from what I understand because I still cannot get cable), yet they put NOTHING into increasing their coverage area.

Thats.just.bull.

And it's because there is no accounting going on. The giant telecomms are getting away with murder in this country.

 

[butterfly0fdoom]

It ain't networks that are killing t mobile or sprint. It's the iPhone. If they get it and have lower prices, they will gain customers at an unprecedented pace. Without it come October, they are both done for.

You have got to be kidding me if you think the iPhone is some miracle sales cow that has managed to ruin Sprint and T-Mobile's chances of survival. Their issues run far, far deeper than their lack of the iPhone. Both have subpar network coverage in contrast to their respective larger same-technology competitors (Sprint has an edge over T-Mobile here as Sprint uses roaming agreements with Verizon to fill the gaps in their network) and Sprint's biggest issue over the past few years was struggling with their stupid Nextel merger, which impacted their service quality. Having the iPhone won't suddenly cause Sprint to rapidly expand and gain market share; in fact, Sprint has been losing post-paid, contract-bound customers while gaining prepaid customers that can leave for another company whenever they want to. Sure, it helps Sprint claim their subscriber base is increasing, but it's not increasing in any meaningful way and it can decline in record-breaking numbers at any given moment. I'm fairly certain the iPhone won't make that situation any better.

 

[karma13612]

You do understand that the US is really big, right? And those rural areas don't have that many people, so they should be the last built out.

----------

I'm one of 'those rural people'.

Why is it that the rural areas in this country are left for dead?

I have a college degree which I am using. I own my home, it's totally paid for.

I prefer classical music to country.

I have traveled to the UK and Europe. I eat sushi every chance I get.

There are actually quite a few people living in rural areas, if you added them all up. But we have no voice because we are kept in the dark by poor telecommunications. We aren't heard, we aren't as connected. We have to fight like he!! to get on the map.

I don't feel that I should be categorized by the telecom industry into some bucket labled "we'll get to you eventually, after we have signed up every man woman and child older than 3 to our cellular plan in this major metro area". Instead of investing in infrastructure, the profits are sucked up back to the shareholders.

If this country is so darn big, then we should have plenty more telecoms trying to fill in the gaps!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sorry, but I'm pretty passionate about this.

 

[spacepower7]

I'd like to see AT&T show HOW their prior mergers and acquisitions have lowered prices and improved service. Oh, right--they can't. Never mind.

What the hell was the ATT CEO thinking when they went to two txt plans, all or nothing. Doing this before a $39 billion merger is utter stupidity.

I've used a small regional carrier since the first iPhone was unlocked in 2007. In the first two years I saved over $1200 by not not using ATT, but had the same plan I would have on ATT.

 

[theelysium]

Screw Oboma's Administration

The administration that's been wrong about the economy, bail outs, creating jobs, etc now thinks they know when they smell a rat? Please, their opinion on how AT&T will perform after it has merged with T-Mobiel is just as trustworthy and impressive as their own track record.

Let the companies merge and if it gets out of hand break then up and while your at it break up Verizon.

----------

What the hell was the ATT CEO thinking when they went to two txt plans, all or nothing. Doing this before a $39 billion merger is utter stupidity.

I've used a small regional carrier since the first iPhone was unlocked in 2007. In the first two years I saved over $1200 by not not using ATT, but had the same plan I would have on ATT.

Totally they should be proving they will keep prices lower by instituting lower prices right now! Helow!

AT&T are sooo Dumb! I think they should merge, but they are dumb...

You are so dumb AT&T, YOU ARE SO DUMB!

 

[kdarling]

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

One difference is that Verizon actually installed 3G across their footprint back in 2007, and soon will do the same with LTE.

 

[Apple 26.2]

Do your thang, Sprint!

 

[butterfly0fdoom]

One difference is that Verizon actually installed 3G across their footprint back in 2007, and soon will do the same with LTE.

Verizon's quick 3G rollout is more an advantage of the CDMA upgrade path; CDMA2000 was designed as an evolution of cdmaOne while EV-DO was designed as an evolution of CDMA2000. This made rolling out newer-generation technology much easier for Verizon and Sprint than for AT&T and T-Mobile, where deploying the (then) newly-developed HSPA required actually rolling out a new network alongside their existing GSM network since the two are incompatible, which is why AT&T's 3G rollout took forever (due to the difficulties of getting infrastructure in place, especially in more dense environments with more stringent regulations and codes) and why T-Mobile was so late to the 3G game (due to their lack of additional spectrum until the AWS bands were up for auction). The other issue in regards to HSPA is uses a WCDMA interface, whose 5 MHz spectrum slices can have interference issues, further delaying deployment of new towers. Another result of all this is the theoretical speeds for EV-DO is lower than UMTS, as EV-DO peaked at Rev. B while HSPA is still expandable, with planned upgrades that can keep up with LTE in the near-term.

LTE and WiMAX require deploying a new network alongside their existing network(s). I don't know what's going on with Sprint that's making their WiMAX deployment so slow, especially compared to Verizon's LTE deployment (that WiMAX wasn't meant to be used as a cellular technology could be part of it, but I don't actually know), but in AT&T's case, they now have two networks to deploy: one to finish deploying and one to start rolling out. So while Verizon is deploying a new network alongside their existing network that has been evolving for the past few decades, AT&T is about to deploy a third network to run alongside their two existing networks.

 

[Kstone113]

what I know....

I know Sprint had a bid in before AT&T and was pissed when AT&T basically took it from Sprint.

The comment about Sprint going from Wi-Max to LTE is going to cost a fortune is right on...

Another comment about Verizon not piping in....b/c they don't care! Verizon is going to be fine regardless....thus not saying anything.

You will always have your regional carriers that will have lower price options so don't bitch about prices. Before this merger was brought up and whatever happens after....all that really truly matters is what Verizon and AT&T do....they copycat each other.

I live in the Chicago land area, had Verizon for 8 years and liked my service. I switched to AT&T back in 2008 and like my service.

I want to the merger to go through b/c it would personally affect my service for the better...and I think it makes business sense. AT&T & T-mobile are on the same type of network. All it will take is a SIM card re-program and phones will work.

Even with the government filing suit and Sprint...It is fluff and I still believe this merger will go through.