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

[techwhiz]

AT&T and T-Mobile Should Not Merge

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.

AT&T lied about being able to build out it's network.
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Blows-Smoke-to-Cover-Leaked-Document-Snafu-115735

THe merger is anti-competitive and would definitely hurt consumers.
The only winners in the deal are AT&T and DT (T-Mobile Parent).
T-Mobile wins big if it doesn't happen. They get $3 billion in cash and spectrum.

The deal also is worrisome to the FCC.
AT&T will try and can try to spin it anyway they want but it sucks for consumers.

If this deal goes through, should Verizon be allowed to buy Sprint??
If not, why not???

 

[Zonz]

Because the "free markets" only work in the beginning. If you think of an industry or a sector from just emerging to fully matured in the begging you have a lot of start-ups, a lot of co, competing. 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.

But the theory behind it is not that there wouldn't be a monopoly for a "little" while, but that it WOULD eventually crumble out of necessity. No company can become so globally dominant that they can truly stifle all competition.

For example, OIL!!! One of the main reasons the Rockefeller's had such control on the market was because of their railroad acquisition. They literally stifled out competition by making it impossible for them to transport their goods. The Sherman Act broke up these kind of anti competitive dealings, put in place by Roosevelt. However, talk to any modern economist and he will tell you that Roosevelt royally ****ed up and is partially the reason why the Great Depression lasted so long. These measures don't help the economy.

The idea under a free market is that monopolies will come and go, but no one company can have such control that they will stifle all competitive measures by all others GLOBALLY. The Oil market which was dominated in the U.S. would have never become a globally sustainable monopoly. And even if it did, it would have lasted only for a short time until it was replaced by the issue were running into now, the fact that crude oil is no longer cheap and people no longer wish to buy it, except out of necessity. And hence spur the new forms of energy being invested in....

It's a double edged sword. Anti-trust laws only seem to stifle the economy, and yet doing nothing seems to leave us in the hands of ethically fickle big-business owners. We lose either way...

 

[pjbigshow]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

I think the US gov't should worry about it's own mess instead of sticking their noses in the middle of a successful company trying to expand and enhance their user experience as well as their bought out companies clientel. If T-Mobile got the iPhone they would do exactly what Verizon did. Start out great and appeal people to switch and then change their policies as well. At least if ATT acquired T-Mobile people might actually have a decent coverage area with time.

 

[Popeye206]

Is this becoming a new thing now on this forum,

1. Start a new thread
2. Post some links
3. Followed by the word "Discuss" and nothing else.

I've been noticing this more and more and I'm puzzled as to why.

It's like throwing raw meat to a pack of junk yard dogs!

 

[accessoriesguy]

wait ATT is trying to block lower prices and they have terrible services (i have witnessed their bad service first hand before), yay indeed

 

[QCassidy352]

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)

This is BAD for consumers from the standpoint of coverage. AT&T and tmo together would mean we'd finally have a rival to vzn for coverage. I'm far more concerned about that than the marginal difference between AT&T's prices and t-mobile's.

 

[Tarzanman]

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 have *got* to be kidding me. Your statement is so wrong that I don't even know where to start.

One network = monopoly and this country has plenty of experience with that.

Look at how crappy cable TV service (which is still a monopoly in many areas) was for YEARs until DirectTV came along and started giving them competition. All of a sudden your cable company has on-demand offerings and basic cable service is actually cheaper than it was 20 years ago.

Developed nations one-quarter the size of the US have twice as many choices in carriers.

You must know absolutely nothing about history if you think that allowing AT&T to gobble up its only UMTS competitor is a good idea.

----------

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)

This is BAD for consumers from the standpoint of coverage. AT&T and tmo together would mean we'd finally have a rival to vzn for coverage. I'm far more concerned about that than the marginal difference between AT&T's prices and t-mobile's.

Uh, no.

Why do you even think that?

 

[StuddedLeather]

AT&T lied about being able to build out it's network.
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Blows-Smoke-to-Cover-Leaked-Document-Snafu-115735

THe merger is anti-competitive and would definitely hurt consumers.
The only winners in the deal are AT&T and DT (T-Mobile Parent).
T-Mobile wins big if it doesn't happen. They get $3 billion in cash and spectrum.

The deal also is worrisome to the FCC.
AT&T will try and can try to spin it anyway they want but it sucks for consumers.

If this deal goes through, should Verizon be allowed to buy Sprint??
If not, why not???

Hypothetically speaking, what do you think will happen, if this deal doesn't go through, and T-Mobile files for bankruptcy? I'll wait for your answer, even though it should be along the lines of "We'll end up right back here". . .

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

They let everyone else merge until prices are sky high (my trash bill alone has gone up from $15 to $22.50 a month in the past 4 years purely due to mergers and zero competition), so why not AT&T as well?

Capitalism is dead. Long live the Corporate States Of America.

 

[aristobrat]

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.

Check again. Saving $720 a year equates to saving $60 a month. T-Mobile is not $60 a month cheaper than any other network

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.

Unlocked US iPhones currently cost $649/$749. I don't see you running out and buying one at that price point. It'd totally wipeout any monthly savings you hope to gain by switching to Sprint.

 

[johncrab]

If this is successful - I mean, if the Obama Admin doesn't cave - then it will also signal that a Verizon/T-Mobile merger is also off the table. That will mean an outsider will have an opportunity. Let's see...who is in the worldwide telco/wireless business in a big way, has piles of cash, loves a challenge and would love a foothold in the US market? Anyone think of Carlos Slim? That would be interesting. Then I could pay 56-cents/minute on both sides of the border to call across town.

 

[pmz]

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.

Applause for this post. I have AT&T and will continue to use them because the wireless service is unbeatable...but they are the epitome of EVIL.
They make George W. Bush look like the Easter Bunny....ok well not really, but they're bad.

 

[aristobrat]

I'm happy. T-mobile is the only carrier keeping pricing in check.

How happy are you going to be when T-Mobile goes out of business, or is the only national carrier without LTE 4G, because they "kept pricing in check" to the point they didn't generate enough revenue to compete?

IMO, T-Mobile's "low prices" are the only thing they can compete with. They don't have as big of a footprint (and they don't seem to have the money to substantially grow their current footprint). They don't have enough subscribers to get many of the newest phones as quickly as the other networks. They don't seem to have a plan for upgrading their network to LTE (although they're advertising the hell out of their super fast 3G as 4G, just to fool the people who don't know better).

At some point, their house of cards is going to give.

 

[John.B]

This:

AT&T’s elimination of T-Mobile as an independent, low- priced rival would remove a significant competitive force from the market.

But not this:

Verizon's elimination of Alltel as an independent, low- priced rival would remove a significant competitive force from the market.

WTF?

 

[Nostromo]

This is good news.

Competition is not functioning in the US cell phone and internet provider market.

 

[aohus]

This is probably what would happen if AT&T acquires T-Mobile

- Job cuts

- Less competitive price points for end user

- Sprint feeling a little more vulnerable now that two super carriers are in their midst

- Most likely little to no improvement in end-user customer satisfaction for AT&T/T-Mobile users post acquisition

- I wouldn't even be surprised if AT&T/Verizon make secret backdoor deals and what not (a la price fixing. i know a stretch, but its possible)

 

[geniusj]

Check again. Saving $720 a year equates to saving $60 a month. T-Mobile is not $60 a month cheaper than any other network

Decided to run the numbers. Probably not $60/mo, but here is what it is:

My plan on AT&T would be: $114.99 (unlimited minutes/text + 2gb data)
My equivalent on T-Mobile costs me: $49.99

However, that's one of two lines on a family plan, and I don't get phone subsidies since I buy unlocked phones (which is a nice option that AT&T doesn't offer, btw)

So, let's do a more apples to apples comparison.

Here's what it would be on T-Mobile WITH a phone subsidy and on an individual plan: $79.99/mo

Individual plan without a subsidy would be: $59.99/mo

 

[ArcaneDevice]

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

Actually if the deal fails, ATT have to pay TMo 3 billion dollars in compensation and give them additional spectrum to play with.

T-mobile is barely competition for AT&T and Verizon.

Which only further emphasizes the need for TMo to exist. Removing them would only highlight the glaring lack of competition to challenge ATT and Verizon. Any competition and one more choice is better than no competition and even less choice.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

How happy are you going to be when T-Mobile goes out of business, or is the only national carrier without LTE 4G, because they "kept pricing in check" to the point they didn't generate enough revenue to compete?

IMO, T-Mobile's "low prices" are the only thing they can compete with. They don't have as big of a footprint (and they don't seem to have the money to substantially grow their current footprint). They don't have enough subscribers to get many of the newest phones as quickly as the other networks. They don't seem to have a plan for upgrading their network to LTE (although they're advertising the hell out of their super fast 3G as 4G, just to fool the people who don't know better).

At some point, their house of cards is going to give.

Let's hope Apple changes the game again. If the iPhone goes "world phone" and is available on all carriers, then the carriers will compete on price and performance, not on the (i)phones they have/do not have.

 

[John.B]

This is probably what would happen if AT&T acquires T-Mobile

- Job cuts

- Less competitive price points for end user

- Sprint feeling a little more vulnerable now that two super carriers are in their midst

- Most likely little to no improvement in end-user customer satisfaction for AT&T/T-Mobile users post acquisition

How is that any different if T-Mobile goes out of business in the US of A, instead?

 

[cmwade77]

I am extremely happy that they decided to step-in. This is they type of thing where the government does need to step in, not in many other aspects of our lives, but rather where everyone will be hurt by the actions of companies.

 

[bwintx]

How happy are you going to be when T-Mobile goes out of business, or is the only national carrier without LTE 4G, because they "kept pricing in check"?

IMO, T-Mobile's "low prices" are the only thing they can compete with. They don't have as big of a footprint. They don't get most of the newest phones (quickly). They don't have a plan for LTE (although they're advertising the hell out of their super fast 3G as 4G, just to fool the people who don't know better).

At some point, their house of cards is going to give.

To quote a Slashdot poster (who quotes Bloomberg):

If this deal is blocked, it would not be bad news for T-Mobile as some here have claimed. According to Bloomberg, "Should regulators reject the deal, which would create the biggest U.S. wireless carrier, AT&T would have to pay Deutsche Telekom $3 billion in cash. It would also provide T-Mobile USA with wireless spectrum in some regions and reduced charges for calls into AT&T’s network, for a total package valued at as much as $7 billion, Deutsche Telekom said this month."

So T-Mobile would get $3 billion in cash, more spectrum, and reduced fees for calls going through AT&T's network. This would seem to be good news for T-Mobile, as all of these things would make them more competitive.

Original comment on Slashdot is here.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

How is that any different if T-Mobile goes out of business in the US of A, instead?

Why stop there? What if AT&T goes out of business? Who is going to pay t-mobile their 3 million in cash and 4 billion in spectrum/calling fees?

 

[geniusj]

How happy are you going to be when T-Mobile goes out of business, or is the only national carrier without LTE 4G, because they "kept pricing in check" to the point they didn't generate enough revenue to compete?

IMO, T-Mobile's "low prices" are the only thing they can compete with. They don't have as big of a footprint (and they don't seem to have the money to substantially grow their current footprint). They don't have enough subscribers to get many of the newest phones as quickly as the other networks. They don't seem to have a plan for upgrading their network to LTE (although they're advertising the hell out of their super fast 3G as 4G, just to fool the people who don't know better).

At some point, their house of cards is going to give.

I believe T-Mobile already announced LTE plans. One thing to remember is that if this merger falls through, AT&T owes T-Mobile spectrum and a load of cash. $7B worth of assets, if I recall correctly. I don't think the T-Mobile situation is nearly as dire as some people make it out to be.

 

[Rocketman]

Always with the government. I am not saying good or bad about the merger proper, but ATT and Tmobile are competitors, but even they are small fish in the international cell market. There are shenanigans, but none sufficient to stop a merger in an industry already too fragmented with transmission standards, people's usage are restricted. What little price descrepency or power they might have in competition with Verizon or Sprint or Virgin or Boost or PCS, is debatable.

This action has no teeth.

Rocketman