Yay!
AT&T is too greedy. Only offering unlimited text messaging plans says enough.
No kidding! Texts should be included as part of your data anyway!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Government Moving to Block AT&T's Acquisition of T-Mobile
- Thread starter troop231
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No kidding! Texts should be included as part of your data anyway!
Sadly civics is no longer taught in schools forced to rely on the no child-lift behind funding BS.
Analysts have already started a list of non-telecom companies that would be more than happy to buy T-mobile to gain spectrum and access. Google is an oft mentioned candidate, especially since they have long ago gave up the ideal of "do no evil" and net neutrality.
Last edited:
Stop drinking (peddling) the corporatist's kool-aid, there is not a single example of a working "free-market economy" outside of a text book. This is simply neuro-linguisitic code for returning to the feudal economies of the 1600s and 1700s or the "gilded age" of the late 19th century where robber-barons ruled politics and finance. The US government was not formed to serve business, is was created to serve the people.
This is a reply to https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=13278010#post13278010 ( a thread which got locked)
T-mobile was the last of the big four networks to get 3G up and running and I expect that they will be the last to get LTE-Advanced up and running. As a customer, I do not have a problem with that. Its the price I pay for lower monthly fees.
AT&T does not need full control over all UMTS frequencies allocated in this country (which is what a T-mobile acquisition will give them). If you think that AT&T is going to start giving out 1700 MHz phones to people then you're mistaken. The 1700MHz bands will likely see primary use as a premium network where they can charge extra for the available bandwidth. A lot of OEMs of box tops are interested in going this route for their devices.
A quick check of AT&T's plans Shows me that 7 years later, AT&T charges the exact same amount for 50 less minutes (just for voice) whereas T-mobile is currently offering unlimited talk/data/text for $50 per line (if you sign up for two lines).
So prices have come down a teeny bit on the Cingular/AT&T's of the world and a lot on the Sprint/T-Mobile/Boost's of the world.
I have T-mobile. They are currently faster than AT&T.
T-mobile was the last of the big four networks to get 3G up and running and I expect that they will be the last to get LTE-Advanced up and running. As a customer, I do not have a problem with that. Its the price I pay for lower monthly fees.
AT&T has plenty of spectrum already. Their network sucks because they have a bunch of iPhones on it, and iPhones are famously poor at cellular radio communications. If AT&T customers want a better network then they should vote with their dollar and find a network that delivers better service.
AT&T does not need full control over all UMTS frequencies allocated in this country (which is what a T-mobile acquisition will give them). If you think that AT&T is going to start giving out 1700 MHz phones to people then you're mistaken. The 1700MHz bands will likely see primary use as a premium network where they can charge extra for the available bandwidth. A lot of OEMs of box tops are interested in going this route for their devices.
You're kidding, right? Have Verizon's prices gone up or down as they have grown to be the #1 provider? Maybe you should learn some history before you make ludicrously incorrect statements.
Thank you for proving my point.
Ok, you clearly have little or no understanding of cellular technology. Under UMTS 3G, texting is NRT (non real time traffic) traffic which makes up less than 1% of the load on a NodeB (cell tower) at any given time. Paying $10 or even $5 for it is a joke.
I signed up a couple of years ago and had a choice between 1500 anytime minutes or 500 anytime+free nights/weekends for $40/month.
A quick check of AT&T's plans Shows me that 7 years later, AT&T charges the exact same amount for 50 less minutes (just for voice) whereas T-mobile is currently offering unlimited talk/data/text for $50 per line (if you sign up for two lines).
So prices have come down a teeny bit on the Cingular/AT&T's of the world and a lot on the Sprint/T-Mobile/Boost's of the world.
For those think T-Mobile will go out of business in the USA, check out the tmonews.com forum. There you will read how T-Mo is actually profitable, just not as profitable as Deutsch Telecom (DT) would like. And keep in mind that DT purchased Voice Stream so it's not surprising another foreign company is interested with Canada's Rogers being mentioned.
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 work for Att and part of the deal was to bring 5000 jobs back to the US that tmobile had outsourced. While all current emplyees jobs would be protected.
I work for Att and part of the deal was to bring 5000 jobs back to the US that tmobile had outsourced. While all current emplyees jobs would be protected.
I wonder who will take the smaller carriers?
Would Sprint buy U.S Cellular? with ~6 Million subs?
I guess I'm fortunate but I know that they won't survive since they are "tiny" compared to Sprint
Would Sprint buy U.S Cellular? with ~6 Million subs?
I guess I'm fortunate but I know that they won't survive since they are "tiny" compared to Sprint
I find it hilarious that all the refuglicans praise deregulation, splitting up previously government owned/large corporations in the name of competition, then, when it comes time to merge into a mega-company they're all for it, because they want to control the market to increase prices.
And by hilarious, I mean that the hypocrisy absolutely disgusts me, every time.
And by hilarious, I mean that the hypocrisy absolutely disgusts me, every time.
That's what they say, but 1-year after the merger AT&T would start trimming the fat.
Don't believe the hype!
Maybe, just maybe, the professionals in the justice department studied the details and came to that conclusion. Everything is not politics.
T-Mobile has had a 50% reduction in revenue since last year.
They are losing customers and money at a significant rate.
DT has said they will not invest anymore money in T-Mobile USA.
The legal proceedings will not move fast enough to prevent further decline in T-Mobile's value.
Watch for a a fire sale on assists when DT pockets the $3 billion in AT&T money and sells off the spectrum to the highest bidder.
I take it in your little world DT is the bad greedy guy selling TMo because it just isn't making enough money. How simplistic of a view.
Look you can't "just" be profitable. You need enough profits to cover future upgrades, 4G for example. While Tmo may be able to say in business right now they are losing customers. Soon they won't be profitable, at that point, bye bye t-mobile.
Here is the United States Government Accountability Office study of wireless pricing over a 10 year period. Just using FACTS to make my point.
http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d10779high.pdf
"Nevertheless, consumers have also seen benefits, such as generally lower prices, which are approximately 50 percent less than 1999 prices, and better coverage."
Just buying out all the competition doesn't equate to free market enterprise in my book.
Mergers <> Capitalism.
Competition = Capitalism.
You apparently don't know the difference between Capitalism and 'free market', son (or that there even is one). Mergers and acquisitions destroy Capitalism by destroying competition and creating monopolies and near-monopolies and then you end up with the resulting price-fixing and Capitalism is effectively then DEAD since it's based on competition, not the lack thereof.
It makes sense that very large businesses would be in favor of monopolies since it benefits them, but Capitalism was never designed to benefit a single business or set of businesses and reward them with monopolies. Capitalism by definition is the idea that competition is good for consumers. Take away the competition (whether bought out or driven out of business by the big guy) and the system fails. You may not think so for your corporation if it comes out on top, but one need not look much further than Microsoft driving Atari, Commodore and nearly Apple all out of business. How does the lack of choice there benefit consumers if the only thing you can get is Windows (or Linux with almost zero commercial software support)? It does create a nice market for viruses, though....
Anti-trust law was created specifically because monopolies kill Capitalism and screw everyone (except the monopolies themselves). Now you may like that, but that doesn't make you a supporter of Capitalism, more like a supporter of dictatorships...namely when large corporations dictate what you pay for a product.
AT&T works great in the 'area' where I live, but for some odd reason it doesn't work great inside my actual house. 3G improved things a bit (I now get 1-2 bars instead of none) and if I go outside, it's fine, but there seems to be some kind of dampening field (probably alien tech ) around my actual house.
I don't have any contract, BTW. I use pre-pay and average around $8 a month. Screw overpriced 'plans' and contracts. I use my home phone 95% of the time, anyway. I leave my cell phone off at work, etc. unless I need to make a call. Using a cell phone without some kind of headset or car bluetooth is slowly microwaving your brain anyway. Is it any wonder brain tumors are way up in the past 15 years....
Mergers <> Capitalism.
Competition = Capitalism.
You apparently don't know the difference between Capitalism and 'free market', son (or that there even is one). Mergers and acquisitions destroy Capitalism by destroying competition and creating monopolies and near-monopolies and then you end up with the resulting price-fixing and Capitalism is effectively then DEAD since it's based on competition, not the lack thereof.
It makes sense that very large businesses would be in favor of monopolies since it benefits them, but Capitalism was never designed to benefit a single business or set of businesses and reward them with monopolies. Capitalism by definition is the idea that competition is good for consumers. Take away the competition (whether bought out or driven out of business by the big guy) and the system fails. You may not think so for your corporation if it comes out on top, but one need not look much further than Microsoft driving Atari, Commodore and nearly Apple all out of business. How does the lack of choice there benefit consumers if the only thing you can get is Windows (or Linux with almost zero commercial software support)? It does create a nice market for viruses, though....
Anti-trust law was created specifically because monopolies kill Capitalism and screw everyone (except the monopolies themselves). Now you may like that, but that doesn't make you a supporter of Capitalism, more like a supporter of dictatorships...namely when large corporations dictate what you pay for a product.
AT&T works great in the 'area' where I live, but for some odd reason it doesn't work great inside my actual house. 3G improved things a bit (I now get 1-2 bars instead of none) and if I go outside, it's fine, but there seems to be some kind of dampening field (probably alien tech
) around my actual house. I don't have any contract, BTW. I use pre-pay and average around $8 a month. Screw overpriced 'plans' and contracts. I use my home phone 95% of the time, anyway. I leave my cell phone off at work, etc. unless I need to make a call. Using a cell phone without some kind of headset or car bluetooth is slowly microwaving your brain anyway. Is it any wonder brain tumors are way up in the past 15 years....
Last edited:
Yeah but the problem with that study is it goes threw the the earily 2000's when it was very cut throat. Back then we had 7-8+ major players and one by one they where bought up to what we have now. Since it was cut down to 5 prices have for the most part gone up. Let's see in the past 5 years we got mandatory data plans shoved on all smart phones, txt messaging plans required for a good number of feature phones, txt messaging plans have gone up in price and cost per txt has gone up as well if you are not on a plane, data plan rates have increased and we have tiered data and I know I have missed some.
All that has taken place since we pretty much have had the big 4. AT&T and Verizon being the worse because they no longer even react to anyone but each other. They have been more or less increasing their bills for a while. T-Mobile going away will make it worse and we'll sprint would just be to small to even compete against them.
Still haven't seen any facts on per unit prices increasing over the long run. Yes, per subscriber monthly charges have increased, but when you compare per minute or per KB/MB charges, the prices have dropped considerably. People quickly forget when the top tiers were 400 minutes per month and data was charged by the KB. It is like cable TV. Sure my bill is higher now...but I'm getting 1,000 channels compared to 40, have HD in every room, have a DVR, etc.
Also, does anyone really believe that AT&T and Verizon don't compete actively against each other? It is laughable to think that shareholders for both companies think "awesome...only two of us...no need to be competitive to drive shareholder value." Seriously...both companies are spending billions on capital expenditures...if there was no competition, why continue to invest in your network and new features??? BTW...little known fact, but AT&T is spending more on capital investment than ANY US company in 2011. Doesn't sound like they are "no longer reacting" to the competition.
I gave you a prime example in my last post. Go back and re-read it.
Again, thanks for making my point for me.
Stop trying to move the goalposts. There is a difference between prices in an emerging market with new tech/services and low demand (like mobile data in the early 2000's) and a more mature market where economies of scale come into play.
Its disingenuous to compare the price of a cellular one car phone from the 1990's to a Boost mobile phone of the 2010's and claim that the market forces were the same during both periods.
A duopoly isn't much better than a monopoly. You skate over the fact that the AT&T would control more spectrum than any of its competitors, have more subscribers than any of its competitors and (combined with Verizon) would have 80% of mobile subscribers in this country.
Turns out this failed merger may be just the thing T-Mobile was looking for:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tmobile-breakup-20110901,0,2140867.story
Government Intervention = BAD
The USG should not be interfering with the merger at this time.
Blocking the merger because such a merger MIGHT be bad for consumers is not good policy.
Only when the merger has proven to be bad for consumers should the USG intervene. Until then, HANDS OFF!
The USG should not be interfering with the merger at this time.
Blocking the merger because such a merger MIGHT be bad for consumers is not good policy.
Only when the merger has proven to be bad for consumers should the USG intervene. Until then, HANDS OFF!
And like I said your study is worthless at this point and you can not compare 2011 to 1999. It is not worth anything until some time after. Prices have increased since then in both data and txt messaging. Rate plan choices have been decreasing in the past few years.
Also when you get down to 2 big guys they tend to react to one another but over all they can and do raises prices. Once raise price the other tends to follow suit. There are not enough choices that have good coverage to force the prices down. Right now you have 4 guys that have coverage in all the major cities. If this merger happens 80% of the coverage will be between 2 people.
Yeah, so lets wait until prices rise and competition is stifled and the consumer has already been overcharged....THEN let's take action. Good plan.
NOT
It won't help T-Mobile USA at all. With nearly a 50% decline in revenue in just the past year alone (and it's still falling) and no plans for LTE, they will be dead by the time the appeals process is done.
DT has publicly stated they will not invest any more money in T-Mobile USA.
DT will pocket the $3 billion and sell off the spectrum they get from AT&T.
Most likely AT&T will simply renegotiate to give DT the cash equivalent for the spectrum and call it a day.
AT&T will win this deal in federal court or by purchasing the remnants after T-Mobile USA's bankruptcy is completed.