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

[saving107]

The USA needs MORE competition in the market not less, the government is smart to block this.

Cell service in the USA is terrible and overpriced when compared to EU, Asia, and South America, and it's due to a lack of competition and investment in the market place. Why would prices get lower when the few big bloated corporations can price fix and gouge everyone $0.25 for a text message and $0.40 a minute of talk time? The USA is the most uncompetitive landscape in the world for broadband and mobile, the last thing we need is a mobile monopoly.

For some reason I feel like your comment and this story that was posted minutes after the Government blocking the merger story go together.

Sprint bumps early termination fee to $350, wants to play with the big boys
http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/31/sprint-bumps-early-termination-fee-to-350-wants-to-play-with-t/

I agree with your comment above and it sucks. I've never had a problem with AT&T until recently when they decided that the only Texting plan would be the $20 unlimited plan, no other option (iMessage and iOS 5 can't come soon enough).

 

[devinci99]

The price will go higher no matter what happens with this merger.

T-mobile is trying to merge because they are losing customers and money.

If AT&T doesn't acquire t-mobile, then someone else will.

People say no no with merger, but they are leaving t-mobile to pay more money to AT&T and Verizon.

Sprint and T-mobile are struggling as of now. If the merger goes thru, then they will just struggle and die faster.

T-mobile isn't doing so well and is facing possible bankruptcy. The parent company in Germany is desperate to sell it off.

T-mobile is barely competition for AT&T and Verizon. Blocking the merger will only let T-mobile go through bankruptcy sooner than later with no one to buy them out at a good price.

How's that going to help keep a healthy competition when they shut doors?

[Sprint is almost in the same boat]

 

[dwman]

No, it's quite bad actually.

The best thing for consumers would be ONE GSM network and ONE CDMA network in the country. But with multiple networks for each standard, we are doomed forever to sub-standard cell reception because there simply isn't the room (and money) to build out robust networks that cover everyone.

This will actually probably increase prices, as carriers will have to spend MORE money to develop networks that could have been improved instead by combining networks.

Next time you are in an area you can't get decent coverage in, remember that it's "good for consumers"

There's a reason most other developed nations have national networks, with various carriers working on that same network.

You can thank lobbyists for this mess. Big donors and lobbyists own the corporations in this country. Discourage competition and these telecom companies win while the consumer loses and pays even more money for wireless service.

 

[andiwm2003]

if someone could please explain why a phone contract with data plan in the US is between $70 and $100 while in Europe it's half that price and in South America it's even cheaper.

And that does already factor in currency exchange rates and costs of living.

And don't say it's because the US is larger. Europe is similar size as is South America. And the coverage in Egypt is better than in New England.

 

[hcho3]

Moving to block? These kind of deals go thru. US Gov will ask AT&T to give up a lot of things. Starting with the money.

 

[wildmac]

That's exactly what happens here in Europe.

Not all of Europe, or have they fallen to the ways of the greedy American bureaucrats that sell off spectrums despite overall harm to the marketplace?

 

[qtx43]

But the FCC is still studying the issue. If the FCC ultimately allows the merger then this DOJ suit is just an empty political move so the administration can point and demagogue. If the FCC rules against, then I'll believe they're serious.

 

[Mad-B-One]

Your magical competition will not provide a better signal.

You going to allow them to put up a new cell tower in your backyard? And who will pay for that tower? you will.

Our problem is the carriers run their own networks. That's not the case in most of Europe. The networks are national, and the "competing" carriers simply sell service off that network. That's why coverage is so much better there. You aren't putting up 4 different towers next to each other.

Nice thought, just one problem: What prevents the companies in the US from doing the same thing? Most of the innovation in price and the barring of overpricing came through aggressive moves from regulatory government bodies from European states or the European Union. The EU forced the mobile companies to not overcharge when customers were in other European countries. The price inside though came from innovative companies who just bought bulk network use and sold cell phones with coverage on all networks. How was that possible? The Government FORCED the companies though anti-trust rules to open their networks for the cost plus a win to other carriers or companies. It worked and the fear that this would prohibit innovation is proven wrong. So, this bogus argument shouldn't work in the US anymore either.

 

[ftaok]

No, it's quite bad actually.

The best thing for consumers would be ONE GSM network and ONE CDMA network in the country. But with multiple networks for each standard, we are doomed forever to sub-standard cell reception because there simply isn't the room (and money) to build out robust networks that cover everyone.

This will actually probably increase prices, as carriers will have to spend MORE money to develop networks that could have been improved instead by combining networks.

Next time you are in an area you can't get decent coverage in, remember that it's "good for consumers"

There's a reason most other developed nations have national networks, with various carriers working on that same network.

I'd go even further and say that the best thing for consumers would be for the FCC to actually do their jobs and mandate a single standard that all wireless providers would have to adhere to. And to accomodate future technologies, I would say that all parties involved (carriers, handset manufacturers, etc) would convene to come up with next generation standards.

That way, consumers could buy their phones and shop for service separately. The providers would actually have to compete, and not rely on artificial lock-ins.

 

[rmwebs]

Next time you can't get a signal, just remember your words...

If you can't get a signal anywhere why would you stick with ATT? Switch networks for goodness sake!

 

[chrmjenkins]

I agree with DOJ. I don't see any value added for the consumers. All I see is value taken away by losing another budget national carrier.

 

[Plutonius]

This is due to healthy competition in the UK. Perhaps geographical size has something to do with it also, but competition really works here.

As others have said, it's mostly due to you having a network standard. Very few of your competing companies could survive here.

 

[d21mike]

No, it's quite bad actually.

The best thing for consumers would be ONE GSM network and ONE CDMA network in the country. But with multiple networks for each standard, we are doomed forever to sub-standard cell reception because there simply isn't the room (and money) to build out robust networks that cover everyone.

This will actually probably increase prices, as carriers will have to spend MORE money to develop networks that could have been improved instead by combining networks.

Next time you are in an area you can't get decent coverage in, remember that it's "good for consumers"

There's a reason most other developed nations have national networks, with various carriers working on that same network.

Very well said. This is the reason I was hoping for the merger. We need more towers to get better coverage. This is the fastest way to make that happen. I assume all the people against the merger are Verizon and Sprint Customers.

 

[MarximusMG]

This is great news for consumers!

 

[bwillwall]

Yay

Thank you US government for making a good choice! AT&T = Black Mesa! "AT&T can suck my bankrupt" - Cave Johnson "Sir the testing..." - Caroline

 

[Plutonius]

I'd go even further and say that the best thing for consumers would be for the FCC to actually do their jobs and mandate a single standard that all wireless providers would have to adhere to. And to accomodate future technologies, I would say that all parties involved (carriers, handset manufacturers, etc) would convene to come up with next generation standards.

Best post yet in this thread.

 

[faroZ06]

If you can't get a signal anywhere why would you stick with ATT? Switch networks for goodness sake!

I don't see why everyone hates AT&T so much. In Los Angeles, all of my friends hate AT&T and use Verizon, then they don't get reception in any of the areas I do with AT&T...

I think it's just people complaining about speed because they didn't use a smartphone until the iPhone came out.

 

[Apple OC]

This is probably a good move to block this ... makes no sense to lessen competition.

When Bell Canada was our only phone choice ... everyone was robbed

 

[benspratling]

Hope they merge. Would love better coverage!

There's places with AT&T and no T-mobile, and places with T-mobile and no AT&T. Take for example my granddad's farm (with great T-mobile and no AT&T) and the road between Auburn and our lake cabin (with great AT&T and no T-mobile). If they merge, I can only assume that I'd get the union of the coverage - which is a huge win for me.
The arguments on this forum against the merger are pretty poor or just flat wrong. I can't possibly spend my time disproving every one. I wish we had some folks who understood economics in the government instead of just "command & control"... and on the forum...

 

[Pro31]

Very well said. This is the reason I was hoping for the merger. We need more towers to get better coverage. This is the fastest way to make that happen. I assume all the people against the merger are Verizon and Sprint Customers.

Yup.

 

[iCrizzo]

Great news for T-Mobile customers, sadly ATT will probably raise my rates if they end up losing $3 Billion if the deal doesn't go through.



side note: U.S. Department of Justice = OXYMORON.

 

[faroZ06]

This is probably a good move to block this ... makes no sense to lessen competition.

When Bell Canada was our only phone choice ... everyone was robbed

There would still be Verizon, Sprint, and those smaller ones.

 

[logandzwon]

T-mobile has no real path to getting 4G. This merger was the only way those employees would still have jobs once 4G becomes the norm.

 

[Bubba Satori]

Yay! AT&T is too greedy.

Oh, the irony. Thanks for the chuckle.

 

[faroZ06]

T-mobile has no real path to getting 4G. This merger was the only way those employees would still have jobs once 4G becomes the norm.

Yes but unfortunately, if the T-Mobile towers are not 4G, AT&T will have to upgrade all of them (expensive).