Tech giants support AT&T's bid for T-Mobile

Discussion in 'Apple, Inc and Tech Industry' started by jav6454, Jun 8, 2011.

  1. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #1
    Plain and simple, Silicone Valley (or at least a huge part of it) wants this to happen.

    Click Me
     
  2. Tarzanman macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2010
    #2
    Lol, don't you mean *Silicon* (unless that was an intentional pun referencing the prevalence of surgically augmented females that live out there).

    I haven't figured out all of the angles for this deal yet. It is the spectrum that AT&T is interested in.

    The only thing I can think of is that maybe some of these large companies feel like they have a better shot at accessing that spectrum once it becomes 'surplus bandwidth' for AT&T instead of being used by T-mobile customers for phone calls.

    Actually... that might make sense. Giving an Xbox the ability to download over the air OR via cable/DSL would give MS a little bit of wiggle room in terms of data transfer costs.

    Google probably doesn't care because of the vast amount of traffic they already control.

    Just my premature conjecture. I'll have to think about stuff some more.
     
  3. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #3
    I see it as bad for consumers as we would basically be dealing with 2 super telecom carriers and then everyone else. Sprint the 3rd largest would pretty much be so small in comparison that they could not really compete.

    Add to this AT&T could kill off some of the great things T-Mobile has and sure as hell would hurt Google as T-Mobile has been the most Android friendly. That and T-Mobile was the only company in the US that really supported UMA. I do not see AT&T really conituning UMA support. Hell I wish Verizon or AT&T would push UMA because UMA is by far better than Microcell crap that AT&T, Verizon and Sprint use.

    Short term yes Microcell is better because all phone can use it but UMA if the major carriers would push it is by far much better long term and with major carriers pushing it the manufactures would start supporting it more.
     
  4. Hueyfreeman macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    #4
    For Consumers this deal is bad news. The death of T-mobile USA will be horrible. It will make it a monopoly for the GSM phones. AT&T already hates to unlock their phones for customers with this deal in place, AT&T will never unlock a phone again so good luck with international phones. T-mobile is also the cheapest of the big four phones and this will take away a really large part of the competition. For T-mobile customers like my self it turns into paying 2x as much for half the service and horrible customer service. Most likely I will be going to Sprint at the end of my contract.

    For phone makers other then apple. This is bad. less carriers means less exclusive models and flagship phones to sale. Also without a doubt T-mobile USA is a service provider that likes to innovate. Without them their will be a lot less innovation from the other companies. As a previous poster said no more UMA.
     
  5. Peteman100 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Location:
    Berkeley, CA
    #5
    I think you might be thinking of Southern California ;)
     
  6. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #6
    I don't see a problem with it and T-Mo is dead anyways, It was going to be sold to someone. Sprint tried to buy it and failed but at&t snuck in and purchased it.

    Do I want less competition no, but it was clear that t-mo wasn't growing and the business was going to vzw/att/sprint anyways.
     
  7. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #7
    problem is Sprint is not big enough to even compete with Vzw and ATT.

    VZW and ATT already act like a monopoly between the 2 of them. If one raises price the other tends to follow. Hell the cost between those to is basicly the same and by far the highest. They got away with forcing data plans on everyone. Now they are forcing us to pay for unlimited texting. You are being reduced to a very basic phone if you do not want unlimited stuff.
     
  8. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #8
    You're right but having t-mobile stick around isn't going to change that nor do I beleive stopping the take over will stop that as well.
     
  9. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #9
    true but I see AT&T taking up TMobile we might as well say bye to Sprint. It will be way to small to matter between the 2. With this happening the writing is on the Wall and it is only a matter of time before Sprint is going to be bought up by either VZW or AT&T. They are way to small to compete.

    If a company is going to buy up TMobile it should be Sprint. At least then it would make sprint big enough. Cost have been increasing to consumers as we have had fewer and fewer choices. AT&T and Verizon have been buying up all the competitors left and right.
     
  10. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #10
    I think that att is going need to divest customers to a third party in order win the merger approval. VZW had to that during their last buy out. So its possible sprint could get a bump in customer base because of this
     
  11. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #11
    Why would Sprint want T-Mobile? They're incompatible networks, and I bet Sprint is having buyer's remorse with the Nextel buyout that happened in 2005. It's 2011, and they're still running 2 entirely separate, incompatible networks and still selling devices for each. Why would they want to add a third incompatible network to the mix? Having to run separate CDMA, iDEN and GSM/HSPA networks is going to be very, very costly and that's just not something Sprint can afford.

    The iDEN network is sort of the red headed step child in the merger. It's there, and you can buy phones for it. But it's not advertised, the phone selection sucks, data on iDEN isn't 3G and barely qualifies for 2G (It's about the same speed as GPRS). And I doubt Sprint has spent a dime to expand iDEN coverage since the merger. Seeing how they've handled that, do you really want to see them take control of T-Mobile's GSM network? It will sit there and be ignored by Sprint, with an aging device portfolio and with no real coverage improvements being made, while Sprint pushes hard to convert the 33 million T-Mobile customers to a CDMA/WiMAX (another technology that no one uses) network that couldn't handle the load without some major investments.

    Heck, I think Sprint's only chance at surviving is to switch from WiMAX to LTE and push to get people onto it before too many people have Evos and Epics, and work to get their current 3G CDMA customers onto 4G too. That way they would stand a fighting chance against Verizon and AT&T-Mobile who will have their LTE networks fully deployed in a couple years. Otherwise, I think you'll quickly see Sprint going down the tubes or being relegated to the small carrier that no one even notices like Cricket or MetroPCS.

    The AT&T/T-Mobile deal makes more sense from a technological standpoint since their technologies are identical. Just different frequencies for 3G, and adding a radio to support both carriers' frequencies is fairly trivial and has been done before. And I think we'll see more device manufacturers start to add support for all frequencies in anticipation of the acquisition being approved. The consumer aspect of the merger is up for debate, but there's no question that Sprint should be the last company to take over T-Mobile.
     
  12. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #12
    It could have been sold to a third party investment firm or the parent German TMobile could have divested shares onto the market slowly. Either one would have allowed it to exit the American market.

    I think the real answer is that the boards and CEOs wanted a cut from the deal (oh, and about 500 MA attorneys and MBAs). I really don't see why we needed a reduction in carriers. To me, it smells of greed and monopolistic practices getting in front of the consumer, yet again. Our telecoms are already pretty terrible. We pay the most and get the least.
     
  13. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #13
    maybe it is high time we press laws that state after a company like telecom crosses lets say 40% of the market rules change for them big time. They become HIGHLY and I mean HIGHLY regulated and their hands get strongly tied to encourage them to stay smaller or spin off companies. Lets face it the TMobile AT&T deal the only people who are going to profit from this deal are the AT&T and T-Mobile higher ups. Everyone else gets screwed.
    Big time for the consumer. It is safe to say we can expect a rate hike from AT&T and Verizon after this. They are way to big.
    I honestly hopes the Feds say no to this deal.
     
  14. jav6454 thread starter macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #14
    Well, Google has good reasons why not to intervene here... the article is pretty clear on that sense. I just wonder what Microsoft and Facebook have to gain on this?
     
  15. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #15
    who knows but there is a flaw in the article big time on the Google voice. AT&T did not give a damn about Google voice because it in no way effects them. It was 100% Apple blocking it not AT&T.

    I would think Google would want to block it since AT&T has been the most restrictive on Android phones and blocking the most stuff on them.

    I see a huge HUGE anti trust issues with VZW and AT&T. Honestly I think they need to be broken up in to smaller carriers and hell the government should a a rule in place that if you grow over a certain size then you become heavy regulated and controlled means you do not want to get that huge and it encourages companies spinning off parts of their company to keep in the smaller size and players in the market.
     
  16. jav6454 thread starter macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #16
    I don't know the entire picture on the Google Voice thing on the iPhone (or any other platform on AT&T's network), so I can't really comment on it.

    As per VzW and AT&T issues, well. I don't know how it is bad for smaller carriers. Their argument is that AT&T and Verizon will increase prices for consumers. However, as it stands small regional carriers (like Circket, MetroPCS and Boost to name a few) offer really cheap plans (unlimited test, web and talk) for $40. These plans become quite enticing to the money saving consumer. This is why I don't get this argument.

    As per duopoly, well, nothing new there. Bounded to happen.

    Also using the government to break them off doesn't help. We all know what happened to AT&T back in 1985, and look where we are now....
     
  17. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #17
    No, it really wasn't "bound" to happen at all. We let it happen by having very little regulation from 2001-2009. Mergers were off the charts during this period. THAT'S how we got to a (potential) duopoly.

    Again, AT&T would have remained distinct entities if we hadn't allowed rampant mergers. A mere 7 years ago there were 5 major national carriers that produced a lot of competition-based gains for consumers (cheaper minutes, better coverage, more phone options, etc) relative to the short time the mass consumer market existed at that time.

    Since that time minutes have remained almost the same in pricing (in fact we are paying a tad more than we used to for the same bundle of minutes and lines than we did in 2004, indicating that it's kept up with inflation), call quality gains have been modest (ok, but certainly not up to par with the time that has elapsed), and while phones have improved a great deal, the carriers have often become obstacles to their full potential.

    Just about the only thing that has improved dramatically since 2004 is profit margins for the 2 giants left standing.
     
  18. jav6454 thread starter macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #18
    That is why it was bounded to happen.
     
  19. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #19
    No, they weren't bound to happen if the SEC had done its job.

    The merger between AT&T and Cingular should probably have been blocked. It started the snowball effect that has left us with so few competitors on the national state.

    The SEC used to patrol companies this way, you know, back in the day before it became subject to regulatory capture.
     
  20. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #20
    Are you talking about the merger between AT&T wireless and Cingular or AT&T and Cingular because at the time when at&t bought up Cingular they did not have a wireless division as they had already sound it to Cingular.

    As I am on my iPod i can not quote jav but I disagree that the higher prices really help players like metro and cricket much because they coverage is well beyond crap and very very limited. Great if you never leave a small area but if you travel let's say between Houston and Dallas at all they do not work.

    We need more national carriers and it would be great to go back to when we had 5 national ones. Consumers were really winning there as prices kept going down. Hell I would be willing to bet of we still had 4-5 carriers of about the same size that SMS would be free none of this 20-30 a month crap for unlimited that is pure profit for the carriers and out network would be on much better shape.
    The big guys really have no reason to make huge leaps in tech because what are we going to do go to someone else? Sorry they are all gone
     
  21. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #21
    ATT wireless and Cingular.

    I agree entirely. The fact that a text message costs anything above .001 cents is ridiculous. Prices really haven't changed for consumers for several years now, and the lack of meaningful competition is clearly a factor.
     

Share This Page