Sidebar Sidebar
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

longofest said:
This absolutely blows. I'm all for competition, but I really think this merger made sense. Verizon and Sprint still provide a decent amount of competition in the US market, not to mention the other lesser known brands (Boost, etc).
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly disagree. Simply pointing out that GSM is the worlds most predominate spectrum; and ATT would be the only one in the USA that has it (by and large, that is.)

Quoted:

"What does GSM offer?
GSM supports voice calls and data transfer speeds of up to 9.6 kbit/s, together with the transmission of SMS (Short Message Service).

GSM operates in the 900MHz and 1.8GHz bands in Europe and the 1.9GHz and 850MHz bands in the US. The 850MHz band is also used for GSM and 3G in Australia, Canada and many South American countries. By having harmonised spectrum across most of the globe, GSM’s international roaming capability allows users to access the same services when travelling abroad as at home. This gives consumers seamless and same number connectivity in more than 218 countries.

Terrestrial GSM networks now cover more than 80% of the world’s population. GSM satellite roaming has also extended service access to areas where terrestrial coverage is not available." source
 
I was against the merger. I've been with "AT&T" for about 10 years now and use most of their services (e.g. DSL/home phone/wireless). Well, they weren't AT&T back in the day when I signed up for them, but still. In our rural area, their services are great. I get awesome DSL connections and 3G is great too. Rarely any dropped calls.

The problem I had with AT&T isn't that they are trying to make money or grow larger. It's that the executives are inherently evil and I can't trust them in the long run when they say this will cut costs for them and eventually drop prices for consumers. AT&T's focus isn't on making a healthy profit or keeping networks upgraded with the latest tech. AT&T's focus is GRAB EVERY F'N PENNY FROM USERS.

Case in point. UNLIMITED isn't really unlimited. Now we have wireless and DSL caps. No more choice in texting, it's either you have the unlimited text plan or no plan at all. They say it makes it simpler for consumers. If it's hard for consumers to chose from 3 texting plans (e.g. 200, 1000, unlimited), then I have lost all hope for humanity.
 
more regulations needed in the US mobile phone scene.

fact - US has one of the most expensive mobile services in the world. but it doesn't have great service.

fact - in most countries "incoming" is FREE. meaning you could have a minute left on your plan or a penny yet you can talk all day long or receive sms's. but only in the US, you lose minutes/money when you receive calls. what the heck?
 
Plutonius said:
Take a look at all the financial shows. T-Mobile went to Sprint before AT+T made an offer (effectively ending any negotiations between T-Mobile and Sprint). T-Mobile is not doing well (as others have said) and they need a buyer.
Click to expand...

No, they just need the iPhone in October.
 
ToroidalZeus said:
I'm surprised someone could actually be more wrong then the people just babbling on about competition.

i hope they merge but your reasoning is completely wrong.
Click to expand...

I recently edited my post to be more specific, but would you like to explain why I am wrong? I'm actually not spouting my own opinion, but regurgitating the words of my economics professor, who teaches masters classes in his field. Maybe I just misunderstand him and regurgitated the wrong stuff?
 
Well in the long run this will absolutely be great for consumers. AT&T is a fat pig that doesn't deserve another bite to eat.

In the short term, this could have a massive effect on AT&T's rollout of 4G. They likely have thrown their eggs into the T-Mobile basket, and without purchasing their 4G infrastructure, will have to resort to a backup plan...spending their own cash on 4G towers.
 
Zonz said:
I recently edited my post to be more specific, but would you like to explain why I am wrong? I'm actually not spouting my own opinion, but regurgitating the words of my economics professor, who teaches masters and doctorate classes in his field. Maybe I just misunderstand him and regurgitated the wrong stuff?
Click to expand...
Because the "free markets" only work in certain situations. If you think of an industry or a sector from just emerging to fully matured in the beginning you have a lot of start-ups, lots co., competing, so the laissez-faire approach works well as the industry develops and matures a lot of times they end up combing and merging. A ISP business or the Cellular business is a great example. Certain sectors are just prone to being natural monopolies. You do you need govt interventions in certain cases.


but in this case t-mobile is pretty much dunzo in the long run so they need to be absorbed or bought out by someone else. the merger is a good thing but your logic not so much.
 
Last edited:
pmz said:
Well in the long run this will absolutely be great for consumers. AT&T is a fat pig that doesn't deserve another bite to eat.

In the short term, this could have a massive effect on AT&T's rollout of 4G. They likely have thrown their eggs into the T-Mobile basket, and without purchasing their 4G infrastructure, will have to resort to a backup plan...spending their own cash on 4G towers.
Click to expand...
What you're talking about?

AT&T is deploying LTE on the 700MHz spectrum that they bought from Qualcomm on their own towers.

T-Mobile USA has no spectrum allocation for 4G services; they are in a quandary with no good opportunities. Heck, they had to resort to the AWS band for 3G services which is why iPhones on the T-Mobile USA network don't get 3G cellular data.

Even if AT&T could acquire T-Mobile USA, they wouldn't shut down T-Mobile's network immediately. It would be several years before AT&T could repurpose T-Mobile USA's 3G AWS frequencies.
 
I am personally glad that the DOJ is looking to block this merger. I have my 2007 iPhone 2G on T-mobile with unlimited talk/text/web for $49/mo.

I paid $650 for the 2G on launch day and frankly it still works just fine. Since it is limited to EDGE speeds anyway I might as well save some money.

My wife has a 3GS on AT&T which uses my old unlimited plan from my 2G. The only reason I keep that AT&T account is because I am grandfathered in with unlimited data.

I fear that if the AT&T/Tmobile deal would go through that my sweet $49/mo deal go with it.
 
The DOJ move makes no sense. DT already stated that T-Mobile USA will not survive.
So I guess this means when T-Mobile U.S.A. goes bankrupt, AT&T can buy their assets at fire sale prices.
As to Sprint's complaints, I say put up or shut up... make a counter offer to buy T-Mobile... oh that's right... they don't have the $$$.

At the end of the day, AT&T will acquire T-Mobile either in whole via this deal or in pieces through bankruptcy liquidation.

The real shocker here is that Sprint is still around.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

I wish this would has went through. Yes I have AT&T but where my home is gets only tmobile service. I was wishin this went through so that the next iPhone would support the band better and get me service without a micro cell. Also note that I do have 3G service about 2 miles into town. I do not have an issue untill collage starts up every year the. Service sucks for the first month or so.
 
What...

Is this the same U.S. Government that steals money from hard working U.S citizens and call it tax? How could they.:mad:
 
AtariMac said:
I am personally glad that the DOJ is looking to block this merger. I have my 2007 iPhone 2G on T-mobile with unlimited talk/text/web for $49/mo.
Click to expand...

Ironically you don't realize this is EXACTLY WHY T-MOBILE IS FAILING. A second-rate discount network. What you (and apparently a lot of people) don't understand is they can't afford to continue providing you service indefinitely. It's too big to be a small co and too small to be a big co. between a rock and a hard place. in the long run it's not going to last.
 
Great news. What we don't need is monopoly-like structures. Fencing in things and creating environments that are closed in nature is always bad for the customer... no competition, too steep margins.
 
An inconvenient truth

benspratling said:
But without the government to pick the winners, the only way they could achieve that is by providing the best product at the best price.... hmmm... sounds like a win for consumers. If they then raise their prices, it creates an incentive for a new little guy to get in the market. No government fines, imprisonment or death necessary.

You see, customers are the ones who should decide which businesses succeed, and they are (until the government steps in and screws it all up). The ones that don't contribute more to their customers than they take go bankrupt, prioritize their debts and get sold off to better management (what should have happened to GM, which was instead handed over to the very covetous management which capsized it in the first place), whereas with government, they prop up continued failures draining the people's money away from things they actually wanted, like the government-subsidized Collins steamship line vs. the entirely-private Vanderbuilt. It's the government-mandated monopolies that can do real harm to people.
Click to expand...

It would appear you have limited awareness of, or simply choose to ignore, how big corporations buy votes to kill upstarts and true competitive challenges or just simply have the public partially subsidize their activities through tax breaks so they are "less costly" than others. The government is only a "problem" when it does not do what business wants and attempts to protect "WE the PEOPLE," instead of "we the corporations."

There is no such thing as "Free Market Capitalism" outside of a textbook, never has been and never will be. You have to have an impartial legal system replete with contract law for capitalism and trade to work, infrastructure to transport not only goods but workers, water & waste, and of course a military to protect the transport of oil and dispose of inconvenient governments at the tax-payers (not industry's) expense. The government is hardly the enemy of business, contrary to the meme in the business press and some political circles it is a prerequisite for a capitalism.
 
andrewsd said:
Not good for t mobile. Deutsche Telekom
wants to get rid of their USA branch. They should be able to sell it to the highest bidder.
Click to expand...

I agree. I don't think people understand this. They no longer want to deal with T-Mobile USA and they put it 'on the market', AT&T was the only other company that had the funds/deal they wanted. Regardless what people 'feel' this is a business and feelings are second in this world.

Furthermore it kills me when people say "Oh I'm glad because T-Mobile is still cheap" etc, this is exactly why they're struggle as well.

I'm neutral, I don't care really because I already have AT&T, but the government, unless they want to buy T-Mobile - should sit down.
 
Any particular reason why the government can't buy back the spectrum from t-mobile and allow anyone to use it by paying an access fee? If we want uniformity we gotta start somewhere right? Then instead of auctioning off spectrum, they just add it to the list of spectrum that can be access via a fee.
 
andrewsd said:
Not good for t mobile. Deutsche Telekom
wants to get rid of their USA branch. They should be able to sell it to the highest bidder.
Click to expand...

Sure if that bidder it not attempting to create a monopoly or collude to drive up prices with a shrinking number of providers. The anti monopoly laws have been on the books a long time, AT&T was counting on its friends (bought politicians) in government to turn a blind eye. DT can still sell the company, just not to a monopolist.
 
Hopefully this does get blocked. I switched to T-Mobile because of how cheap they are. My families phones were bought on eBay to avoid contracts. If AT&T took over I just know they'll spot my iPhone 3GS and require me to upgrade my plan to an iPhone plan.

The last time I checked AT&T was about $720 a year more expensive for the same plan I have with T-Mobile. $720 a year is not worth it for 200MB 3G data. EDGE is fine for checking e-mails and very rarely looking at a website.

Though if the merger comes to fruition. Hopefully the iPhone 4S/5 will be out, unlocked (like they now have for the iPhone 4 in the US), and compatible with GSM and CDMA. So that I can decide between Verizon, Sprint and AT&T. With current pricing Sprint is the clear winner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back