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

[cvaldes]

So the Obama Regime is stopping an American company for buying a foreign company right here is the USA. Gee, does that surprise anyone?

Stop dragging partisan politics into this discussion. You know nothing about what you are talking about.

I will point out that UK-based Vodafone owns about 45% of Verizon Wireless.

Also, it was the US Department of Justice that made this recommendation, a completely separate division of the government than the Executive branch.

Did you take civics in high school or is that next year for you?

 

[tuhoops]

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)

It is immoral for the government to prevent a mutually agreed upon exchange of money for a product, service, or company. If the T-Mobile deal is blocked, it needs to serve as a wakeup call that the government is overreaching too much.

This may be one of the most ill informed posts I've ever come across on these boards...

 

[akm3]

This is GREAT news!

I was truly afraid the DOJ wouldn't have the balls to step in, so I'm absolutely, and pleasantly surprised.

GET 'EM BOYS!

You mean that Verizon and Sprint bribed the the DOJ and the politicians more than AT&T and Tmobile did...

 

[aohus]

You mean that Verizon and Sprint bribed the the DOJ and the politicians more than AT&T and Tmobile did...

c'mon now, its not 'bribing' its called 'lobbying'

 

[nefan65]

You mean that Verizon and Sprint bribed the the DOJ and the politicians more than AT&T and Tmobile did...

EXACTLY!

This block is nothing more than code for "You need to sweeten the deal AT&T!". It's posturing by the government, and nothing more. Gives everyone the appearance that they're looking out for everyone's best interest. It's all nonsense, and a waste of tax payer's $$$. In the end, this will go through, with amendments to the original request. Those that think differently are blind. Stop watching/listening to Sean Hannity and his cronies...

 

[THECLOUD9]

What motive does AT&T have to improve service?

Competition always helps consumers. If not for T-Mobile and Sprint charging less than AT&T and Verizon do, AT&T and Verizon would likely be charging even MORE than they do now.

You make some very good points. I guess I am just hoping in a hopeless situation. These big corporations are making a ton of money and all of us get the short end of the stick.

At this point I just want better service. I can barely make calls in my house.

As I said earlier I hope the government steps in to make regulations to push us more toward how Europe does their service.

 

[daxomni]

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).

Then you're not really "all for competition" are you? Who exactly do you think provides the infrastructure for "the other lesser known brands?" The only thing that blows is your misrepresentation of the situation.

 

[aohus]

AT&T is evil. look at their HQ ffs. Its got horns ya'll.

 

[nefan65]

You make some very good points. I guess I am just hoping in a hopeless situation. These big corporations are making a ton of money and all of us get the short end of the stick.

At this point I just want better service. I can barely make calls in my house.

As I said earlier I hope the government steps in to make regulations to push us more toward how Europe does their service.

I wouldn't say that Verizon is cheaper than AT&T. I've compared my current plan with theirs, and it's roughly the same thing...

Not to sound like I'm slamming you, but your last comment made me roll my eyes. EVERY time I see someone make the comment "Service is terrible where I live, or at my primary location" I can only think WTH? Why do people buy a cell phone and plan, AND lock themselves in for 2 years WITHOUT knowing if it works in their primary location(s)? Sprint is terrible where I live, and the places I frequent, so I'd never get a Sprint phone or service.

Don't blame a provider for poor service, when its' you're own fault...

----------

Then you're not really "all for competition" are you? Who exactly do you think provides the infrastructure for "the other lesser known brands?" The only thing that blows is your misrepresentation of the situation.

To some extent, his argument is valid. It's no different than Verizon [or here in the New England area...Fairpoint] owning the poles, and last mile for landlines and high speed data lines, and other service providers leasing them from FP/VZ. Granted I'm leaving out a lot of the particulars, but its very similar. If I order a T-1 line from say QUEST, or a local provider, Fairpoint is the one that actually comes out, does the install to the D-Markation point, and then hands it off to the provider. I can get the cost of that T-1 cheaper from the provider than that of FP direct.

 

[goosnarrggh]

Why do people buy a cell phone and plan, AND lock themselves in for 2 years WITHOUT knowing if it works in their primary location(s)?

+1.

Do any cell companies in the USA have a "cooling off" period for new 2-year contracts -- some period of time (say, 14 or 30 days), to determine whether or not the phone and network actually perform as advertised, and if they don't (and the customer is still inside their cooling off period), the customer has an opportunity to return the equipment (undamaged of course), disconnect service, and walk away?

 

[e-coli]

Finally. The last thing we need in wireless is less competition.

 

[ann713]

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)

Does this mean the chances of the iPhone coming to T-Mobile will increase?

 

[Geckotek]

T-Mobile can't survive much longer without the iPhone. Assuming they won't be getting the iPhone in October <snip>

Why would you assume that?

Unlimited is eventually going away for everyone since it's not currently sustainable with video streaming and tethering.

I used to agree, then I travelled to Seoul. I call BS. They have a higher population density yet everyone is walking around streaming video. Why they hell are we so restricted and backwards???

The carriers each run their own network. There's simply not the room or money to build out independent networks for each carrier. As a result, our service will continue to lag behind other countries.

Really? Because other countries have multiple carriers and don't seem to suffer from the same limitations.

I find American monthly prices gobsmacking.

Pay £30 (about $50) for 600 cross network minutes, unlimited texts (really unlimited), and real unlimited data I can tether with. PAYG deals are even better.

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


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=53.497522,-2.377112

Yeah, and Korea is kicking as well. Not sure what the issue is here in the US. I can no longer defend our carriers.

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.

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

Yes, I think wireless providers need to be treated as a utility. We need a delivery company with several customer facing service companies that lease at a fixed rate from the delivery company. Just like electricity. Towers and backhaul need to be consolidated and capacity expanded.

 

[daxomni]

To some extent, his argument is valid. It's no different than Verizon [or here in the New England area...Fairpoint] owning the poles, and last mile for landlines and high speed data lines, and other service providers leasing them from FP/VZ. Granted I'm leaving out a lot of the particulars, but its very similar. If I order a T-1 line from say QUEST, or a local provider, Fairpoint is the one that actually comes out, does the install to the D-Markation point, and then hands it off to the provider. I can get the cost of that T-1 cheaper from the provider than that of FP direct.

Let's say I have poor service from AT&T and want to choose another provider so I can get better service. If the alternative provider I choose is just quietly piggybacking on AT&T's network then I'm going to receive similar if not identical performance as I started with. Let's say I want to choose another provider so that I'm not inadvertently bankrolling the Tea Party via my AT&T phone bill. If my small time provider is piggybacking off AT&T's network then I'm still bankrolling the Tea Party. That is NOT real choice and that is NOT real competition!

 

[chagla]

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.

so you are saying that we should pay more?

wow. i never thought of that... let me break my piggy bank then..

 

[Rodimus Prime]

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).

minus the fact prices have been going up not down in recent years. The lack of competition to AT&T and Verizon have shown that fact. Text messaging has gone up in price. Data has gone up in price.

T-Mobile had what I felt was the best way of dealing with data hogs on the network and none of this crap Verizon and AT&T did. You buy X amount of data at max speed and after that point you are throttled. The only country that gets more screwed that the US is Canada and if you notices Canada has even fewer players right now than the US.

 

[sishaw]

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).

How does Verizon, who, like ATT, charges high prices for services, provide "a decent" amount of competition? They both have the same policies, basically, it's no competition from the consumer's viewpoint. And Sprint is on its last legs. If the merger goes through, consumers in large parts of the US will be forced into paying higher prices for service.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

Well, is this official and final, or just an attempt and there's still going to be an appeal?

I have T-Mobile and as much as I want the iPhone, I wouldn't switch to AT&T; it would cost me about $40 more per month.
I only have my iPad 3G Unlimited Plan with AT&T because I had no alternative.

And I'm not interested in Verizon, as they use CDMA and doesn't allow for simultaneous voice and data access. PLus, they are as expensive or higher than AT&T.

 

[wheezy]

This may be one of the most ill informed posts I've ever come across on these boards...

Actually, your reply is one of the most ill-informed I've seen. Do you have any idea of what capitalism and what the free market really is? It is NOT surrendering the freedom to carry out deals and contracts to the whim of lawyers and lobbyists. What you seem to be in favor of is the exact opposite of the free market - the free market being the type of commerce the United States is supposed to support. Is this the type of deal the EU could pass? Sure! That's the kind of market they want to run. However, the US became the super power it did because it opted for the freer market system, not one managed by ill-informed overpaid lawyers and lobbyists.

Let's try this approach. You own a video production company, and you have all the coolest gear. Your competitor however does not have all the coolest gear. He doesn't like that you get more business than him because you can deliver a better product, faster. But such is business and we all accept it, right? (Or do you think it's "fair" for the better company to be forced to pay more taxes so the lesser company can receive those taxes and buy better gear so things can be "equal"?)

Then, one day, you decide you want to buy some more extra cool hot off the shelf gear that'll make you even more money. However, suddenly you find yourself unable to buy the new gear because the government came in and said that you're not allowed to, that it'd make you too good of a production company and it's just not fair. You already have enough gear and you need to be happy about that. Is this how you would like to be treated? Do you want to get government approval before you buy new things?

If you'd like to push this into the sphere of "fewer choices = a need for more regulation" then let's say that you and your competitor are the only video production houses for 500 miles. Would it suddenly be okay if you had to get permission, or would it still be unacceptable?

The government has no business in business.

 

[sishaw]

Actually, your reply is one of the most ill-informed I've seen. Do you have any idea of what capitalism and what the free market really is? It is NOT surrendering the freedom to carry out deals and contracts to the whim of lawyers and lobbyists. What you seem to be in favor of is the exact opposite of the free market - the free market being the type of commerce the United States is supposed to support. Is this the type of deal the EU could pass? Sure! That's the kind of market they want to run. However, the US became the super power it did because it opted for the freer market system, not one managed by ill-informed overpaid lawyers and lobbyists.

Let's try this approach. You own a video production company, and you have all the coolest gear. Your competitor however does not have all the coolest gear. He doesn't like that you get more business than him because you can deliver a better product, faster. But such is business and we all accept it, right? (Or do you think it's "fair" for the better company to be forced to pay more taxes so the lesser company can receive those taxes and buy better gear so things can be "equal"?)

Then, one day, you decide you want to buy some more extra cool hot off the shelf gear that'll make you even more money. However, suddenly you find yourself unable to buy the new gear because the government came in and said that you're not allowed to, that it'd make you too good of a production company and it's just not fair. You already have enough gear and you need to be happy about that. Is this how you would like to be treated? Do you want to get government approval before you buy new things?

If you'd like to push this into the sphere of "fewer choices = a need for more regulation" then let's say that you and your competitor are the only video production houses for 500 miles. Would it suddenly be okay if you had to get permission, or would it still be unacceptable?

The government has no business in business.

The government gives out the wireless spectrum being used in the first place, it is in the government's (i.e., yours and mine) interests in making sure there is competition in the marketplace. Your hypothetical has nothing to do with this issue in the first place. Wireless service is a regulated industry and always has been.

 

[bigchief]

Stop dragging partisan politics into this discussion. You know nothing about what you are talking about.

Also, it was the US Department of Justice that made this recommendation, a completely separate division of the government than the Executive branch.

My,my, you are so naive.

 

[THECLOUD9]

I wouldn't say that Verizon is cheaper than AT&T. I've compared my current plan with theirs, and it's roughly the same thing...

Not to sound like I'm slamming you, but your last comment made me roll my eyes. EVERY time I see someone make the comment "Service is terrible where I live, or at my primary location" I can only think WTH? Why do people buy a cell phone and plan, AND lock themselves in for 2 years WITHOUT knowing if it works in their primary location(s)? Sprint is terrible where I live, and the places I frequent, so I'd never get a Sprint phone or service.

Don't blame a provider for poor service, when its' you're own fault...
----------

Actually I wish I had had the choice to choose a carrier. For one my phone is a company phone, so I did not get to choose who I went with. Also at the time they were the only carrier with the iPhone, so I was at least happy about that.

Nevertheless my service should not be this bad. In fact 2 years ago I would get 3-4 bars of service in my house, but over the last year I have 1 and sometimes 2 bars.

I know there are other factors involved, but as I travel all over Europe it never seems to be a problem. In fact I was just in Africa in the middle of the Serengeti and had 4 bars.

 

[TEG]

This is a bad move, as this will prevent there from being a coast-to-coast LTE network.

TEG

 

[Geckotek]

This is a bad move, as this will prevent there from being a coast-to-coast LTE network.

TEG

How exactly do you believe that?

 

[wheezy]

The government gives out the wireless spectrum being used in the first place, it is in the government's (i.e., yours and mine) interests in making sure there is competition in the marketplace. Your hypothetical has nothing to do with this issue in the first place. Wireless service is a regulated industry and always has been.

My hypothetical discusses a principle of the government stepping in and preventing the purchase of goods because it wants to. The PRINCIPLE covers both instances.

Regarding the regulation of the wireless spectrum, whether or not the government "gives out" the spectrum or not has no bearing on whether or not there is competition. Competition would exist if the government wasn't in control of the spectrum. Quite honestly, there would probably be more competition.