U.S. Government Moving to Block AT&T's Acquisition of T-Mobile

[butterfly0fdoom]

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.

T-Mobile will likely never get LTE-Advanced running since they don't have the spectrum to deploy it. They didn't have the spectrum to deploy HSPA until the AWS bands were put up for auction; by that point in time, the other major carriers had their 3G networks deployed or in the process or being deployed.

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.

AT&T has already stated that if the merger goes through, the AWS bands will be used for LTE.


That said, it's rather obvious AT&T doesn't need T-Mobile as much as they say they do. If anything, T-Mobile needs AT&T. The severance T-Mobile gets from AT&T if the merger doesn't succeed is pretty much the only infusion of cash they'll see while their profits dwindle. If and when (more when than if) T-Mobile collapses, the end result would be more or less similar to if the merger did succeed. IMO, the merger may as well succeed.

 

[Zonz]

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.

Look to China's recent flourishing in their economy to see how a free and unregulated market can help boost a previously overwhelmingly impoverished country. More specifically, Hong Kong. It is one of the worlds leaders in international trade, low taxation, and currency. Even in changing conditions globally it has managed to survive and flourish with very little regulation. The only thing the government is involved in is building roads, schools, hospitals, and providing welfare, and it can do all this without building up any debt at all. Take a visit to the magnificent city, and you'll see its hardly a return to anything of the 1600/1700's. Its clean, grand, and efficient, all because of the benefits of laissez-faire capitalism (and it's convenient spot on the coast as well).

 

[powers74]

Good

Spend 36B on upgrading your own network a$$holes. Like a company that cares about innovation and their customers.

 

[0007776]

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!

So basically you want them to wait until the damage is already done, and they can't do much about it.

 

[swedefish]

Look to China's recent flourishing in their economy to see how a free and unregulated market can help boost a previously overwhelmingly impoverished country. More specifically, Hong Kong. It is one of the worlds leaders in international trade, low taxation, and currency. Even in changing conditions globally it has managed to survive and flourish with very little regulation. The only thing the government is involved in is building roads, schools, hospitals, and providing welfare, and it can do all this without building up any debt at all. Take a visit to the magnificent city, and you'll see its hardly a return to anything of the 1600/1700's. Its clean, grand, and efficient, all because of the benefits of laissez-faire capitalism (and it's convenient spot on the coast as well).

DEAD at you pointint to China and using Hong Kong as an example. Because, you know, the Chinese governmetn isn't at all involved in regulating company ownership structures and, oh, THE INTERNET.

 

[vitzr]

Never underestimate the power and influence of AT&T. They've been in business for far too long and have lots of experience.

They also have cash stashed everywhere like Aunt Ella stuffing it under the mattress

This latest news is just posturing and part of the process. It will drag on for who knows how long, but eventually AT&T will have T-Mobile in hand and everyone will benefit.

Will there be casualties? Of course, but in the overall scheme of things it will all work out in the end.

AT&T has this kind of business down cold. Love em or hate em, it's the way it is.

 

[dukebound85]

Never underestimate the power and influence of AT&T. They've been in business for far too long and have lots of experience.

They also have cash stashed everywhere like Aunt Ella stuffing it under the mattress

This latest news is just posturing and part of the process. It will drag on for who knows how long, but eventually AT&T will have T-Mobile in hand and everyone will benefit.

Will there be casualties? Of course, but in the overall scheme of things it will all work out in the end.

AT&T has this kind of business down cold. Love em or hate em, it's the way it is.

Do you forget the mid 80's?

 

[alent1234]

This is a reply to https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=13278010#post13278010 ( a thread which got locked)



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.

maybe for single people, but i was checking family plans today and sprint/t-mo will cost just as much as my discounted AT&T plan. in some cases more.

i'm actually thinking of going to verizon just for the better android phones, but probably won't

 

[Mal]

maybe for single people, but i was checking family plans today and sprint/t-mo will cost just as much as my discounted AT&T plan. in some cases more.

i'm actually thinking of going to verizon just for the better android phones, but probably won't

Are you kidding me? My wife and I will save over $50 a month by sticking with T-Mobile instead of going with AT&T, which is huge. Doesn't matter much how people you get on a plan, T-Mobile is almost always the cheapest by a good bit. The only sacrifice you make it the quality of coverage in some areas, but here in Orlando they cover as much as anyone else.

jW

 

[yeah]

I hope the deal doesn't pass!
If it does, then all of t-mobile costumers will be stuck paying outrageous prices from AT&T!
If it doesn't then for t-mobile. They get 8 billion from AT&T!

 

[tigres]

This thread should be renamed to US govt receives bribes to force the merger and F the US consumer.

I saw this ***** comming a mile away. http://www.bgr.com/2011/08/31/u-s-government-sues-to-block-att-t-mobile-merger/

 

[Mal]

This thread should be renamed to US govt receives bribes to force the merger and F the US consumer.

I saw this ***** comming a mile away. http://www.bgr.com/2011/08/31/u-s-government-sues-to-block-att-t-mobile-merger/

Methinks your reading comprehension is a bit off right now. The US Government isn't forcing the merger, it's trying to stop it. It's also not trying to hurt the consumer (at least not in this instance), the merger would be harmful to the consumer.

jW

 

[tigres]

Methinks your reading comprehension is a bit off right now. The US Government isn't forcing the merger, it's trying to stop it. It's also not trying to hurt the consumer (at least not in this instance), the merger would be harmful to the consumer.

jW

It's a smokescreen. The DOJ has to go through the motions.

I want to believe, but we all know that the politicians pockets are being lined by ATT. That article just show that thus far almost 1MM has been paid by ATT.

So, I was actually just reading between the lines that are being written now.

 

[Ammo]

Spend 36B on upgrading your own network a$$holes. Like a company that cares about innovation and their customers.

They're spending $20 billion this year on the network.

Link: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...ith-local-network-enhancements-128588333.html

 

[rjohnstone]

It's a smokescreen. The DOJ has to go through the motions.

I want to believe, but we all know that the politicians pockets are being lined by ATT. That article just show that thus far almost 1MM has been paid by ATT.

So, I was actually just reading between the lines that are being written now.

Bloomberg News did a great write up on the contributions. What everyone is not getting is that 1MM was paid out over a the course of more than two decades (dating back to 1989). Talk about making something out of nothing.
They were campaign contributions made by AT&T employees, not by the company and were paid out to both Rep and Dem congressmen.

 

[chrmjenkins]

Bloomberg News did a great write up on the contributions. What everyone is not getting is that 1MM was paid out over a the course of more than two decades (dating back to 1989). Talk about making something out of nothing.
They were campaign contributions made by AT&T employees, not by the company and were paid out to both Rep and Dem congressmen.

Because employees of the company makes it better, right?

Whatever the level, this kind of conflict of interest is a reason the US needs publicly funded campaigns.

 

[rjohnstone]

Because employees of the company makes it better, right?

It basically means nothing. It's a non-issue.
Private citizens can contribute to whomever they choose.
FEC laws limit how much one can contribute.
$1 million in combined contributions over two+ decades is a drop in the bucket and is a stretch at best at being considered influential.
Hell AT&T doesn't even have a PAC (political action committee).
These were individual contributions.

Obama's campaign picked up $1.6 million from the University of California employees (Their PAC) in ONE YEAR (2008).
Goldman Sachs PAC gave his campaign over $1 million in ONE YEAR.

All told he got nearly a billion dollars in contributions for his election bid.

That's influential.

Whatever the level, this kind of conflict of interest is a reason the US needs publicly funded campaigns.

What conflict of interest?
So you're suggesting that a private citizen should be barred from making campaign contributions because for who they work for?

 

[aohus]

you know its bad when Verizon is endorsing the T-Mobile/AT&T merger deal. Can anyone say duopoly?

 

[tigres]

Well looks like Al Gore just gave some insight to thoughts on AT&T's success of winning this. Hope he is right!!

This is my next

 

[rjohnstone]

Well looks like Al Gore just gave some insight to thoughts on AT&T's success of winning this. Hope he is right!!

This is my next

Al Gore is an idiot.

The justice department's whole premise is to have T-Mobile remain an independant 4th carrier.

What the idiots at the DOJ can't seem to get through their collective heads is T-Mobile USA will go bankrupt and cease to exist without the deal.

So either AT&T merges with them now or AT&T buys the pieces in a fire sale through bankruptcy auctions.

The DOJ is simply wasting tax payer money by getting into a pissing contest with AT&T.

 

[OceanView]

Al Gore is an idiot.

The justice department's whole premise is to have T-Mobile remain an independant 4th carrier.

What the idiots at the DOJ can't seem to get through their collective heads is T-Mobile USA will go bankrupt and cease to exist without the deal.

So either AT&T merges with them now or AT&T buys the pieces in a fire sale through bankruptcy auctions.

The DOJ is simply wasting tax payer money by getting into a pissing contest with AT&T.

You could add that they could be bought out or enter a joint venture with another company.

 

[daxomni]

Al Gore is an idiot.

The justice department's whole premise is to have T-Mobile remain an independant 4th carrier.

What the idiots at the DOJ can't seem to get through their collective heads is T-Mobile USA will go bankrupt and cease to exist without the deal.

So either AT&T merges with them now or AT&T buys the pieces in a fire sale through bankruptcy auctions.

The DOJ is simply wasting tax payer money by getting into a pissing contest with AT&T.

I'd be curious if you put yourself in the role of anti-trust regulator what you would do to prevent the American mobile phone market from consolidating to the point that there cease to be any options besides AT&T and Verizon.

 

[flipperfeet]

Al Gore is an idiot.

The justice department's whole premise is to have T-Mobile remain an independant 4th carrier.

What the idiots at the DOJ can't seem to get through their collective heads is T-Mobile USA will go bankrupt and cease to exist without the deal.

So either AT&T merges with them now or AT&T buys the pieces in a fire sale through bankruptcy auctions.

The DOJ is simply wasting tax payer money by getting into a pissing contest with AT&T.

There are other potential buyers outside of AT&T, any of which would be more motivated to provide better pricing and service. Having spent 90 minutes attempting to replace a lost 3GS with a new 4S this past week, I am more convinced than ever that AT&T is not interested in improving the customer experience, they are interested in buying up as much of the market as they can so they can continue to gouge and abuse a captive customer base. The DOJ is not wasting tax payer money, they are doing what they are supposed to be doing. Government's job is to serve its citizens first, not corporations posing as pseudo-citizens.

The US constitution promises HUMANS inalienable rights not corporations, it is only through the perversion of our laws, the purchasing of politicians, and the ignorance of citizens that we have ended up in our current situation where corporations enjoy greater freedoms than people and the mis-informed believe "free-makert" hogwash is a right and natural state in the USA.

 

[rjohnstone]

You could add that they could be bought out or enter a joint venture with another company.

Nobody else wants to buy them or simply doesn't have the funding to do it.
Guess they all will wait for them to go under first and then buy up the pieces at a fraction of the cost.
I'm sure T-Mobile customers will be ecstatic about having service under those conditions.

I'd be curious if you put yourself in the role of anti-trust regulator what you would do to prevent the American mobile phone market from consolidating to the point that there cease to be any options besides AT&T and Verizon.

I have thought of that.
The issue is the anti-trust regulators are failing to see the bigger picture.
T-Mobile USA is already dead in the water.
The parent company has alraedy cut off funding and is not longer investing in T-Mobile USA for expansion.
The DOJ can't force a company to remain in business.
They have a very fair offer on the table from a buyer, AT&T.
Sprint doesn't have the cash, so they cry like a baby about it.
I don't think the feds want to take on the role of providing a government owned carrier as a 4th option.

What made them decide 4 carriers was the magic number?

If they wanted consumers to have more options, why did they let Verizon merge with AllTel?
Verizon had to spin off assets and customers for the deal to go through.
AT&T has agreed to do the same.
Metro PCS is ready to pick up $4 billion in T-Mobile USA assets and spectrum from AT&T if the deal goes through. Hell, DT even offered financing to Metro PCS to help solidify the deal.

 

[tigres]

Al Gore is an idiot.

The justice department's whole premise is to have T-Mobile remain an independant 4th carrier.

Gore being an idiot is irrelevant, he knows more people than you or I in positions of power; and as much as I could care less of his person- I am glad he spoke up on the matter.

Also, the DOJ whole premise here is to avoid a monopoly, not making sure T-mobile stays in business.