Verizon CEO Strongly In Favor of AT&T/T-Mobile Merger

Discussion in 'iOS Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Sep 22, 2011.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot


    Apr 12, 2001


    Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam spoke out strongly in favor of AT&T's proposed merger with T-Mobile on Wednesday. The merger has been challenged in two separate lawsuits by the Department of Justice and Sprint.

    McAdam, at an investor conference, said the AT&T/T-Mobile "match had to occur" because spectrum is such a valuable commodity. AT&T has proclaimed the need for increased spectrum as the primary benefit behind the merger, saying "planned combination with T-Mobile by far the surest, fastest, and most efficient solution to the spectrum and capacity challenges we face."

    As reported by BGR:
    (Photo courtesy Flickr/Fortune Live Media)

    Article Link: Verizon CEO Strongly In Favor of AT&T/T-Mobile Merger
  2. DeaconGTG macrumors member

    Sep 21, 2011
    Of course he's publicly in favor of it. If the merge is successful, Verizon's going to try to do the same with Sprint in the next few years. He can't have his words come back to haunt him.

    But I'm sure there's a tiny part of him that would love to see AT&T fall flat on its face. :p
  3. ravensfan55 macrumors 6502

    Mar 16, 2009
    AT&T and Verizon are like the US and USSR during WWI.

    They look out for eachother but inside don't like eachother.
  4. toomanyipods macrumors newbie

    Sep 27, 2007
    Of course Verizon is in favor of the merger . . .

    A merger can only lead to a moderate exodus of customers from to Sprint and Verizon. With fewer players, it takes less effort to adjust to, or collude with competitors. Spectrum is an issue, but removing competition is definitely NOT the answer for consumers.
  5. chrmjenkins macrumors 603


    Oct 29, 2007
    I think you pretty much nailed it. The best part is that the point he is making is actually valid in the way he is presenting it, so it's not not distorted and loaded with Verizon's own intentions baked in. AT&T could do better with more spectrum, no doubt. The part where he is cheering for AT&T's customers to have more bandwidth is a bit dubious though. :D
  6. hcho3 macrumors 68030

    May 13, 2010
    AT&T and Verizon look like they are the biggest competitors in the US, but no... no no. They are also closest friends. They can just team up and be duopoly on wireless networks.

    The Verizon was praised for having a good networks, but expensive pricing compare to T-mobile.

    With t-mobile going bye-bye, they will be more happy because fewer people will make jump on other carriers.
  7. DTphonehome macrumors 68000

    Apr 4, 2003
    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)

    Exactly right.
  8. DTphonehome macrumors 68000

    Apr 4, 2003
    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)

    He stuck that in there to imply that the government should give telecoms more spectrum.
  9. JangoFett124 macrumors regular

    Jul 16, 2002
    Agreed, with the addition being that if AT&T has less competition, so does Verizon.
  10. DakotaGuy macrumors 68040


    Jan 14, 2002
    South Dakota, USA
    I agree. There is no way he would be against this because if it is not approved it limits Verizon's future acquisitions. If this deal is approved it helps set a precedent for the approval of a Verizon-Sprint merger. Make no mistake AT&T and Verizon want a duopoly so they can dictate pricing. Believe me we will pay big prices as customers in the future if these companies don't have strong smaller competition.
  11. Bearxor macrumors 6502a

    Jun 7, 2007
    I used to think that, but now I don't know what Verizon would do with Sprint. Sprint doesn't own all the 2.5ghz spectrum in their 4g markets so I don't think that would be worth their time. Sprint's 3G/Voice network is 1900mhz nationwide, whereas Verizon has a mixed 850/1900 system and they added a **** ton of spectrum where they were short in the Southeast by purchasing Alltel. I suppose they could add Sprint's 1900 to their mix but, from what I'm aware, Verizon isn't having as much of a crunch on their spectrum in nearly as many places as AT&T.

    So other than customer acquisition, I'm just not sure what Sprint would give Verizon these days. It would be cheaper to simply let Sprint fail and then gobble up their customers wholesale during liquidation. I'm just not quite so keen on Verizon purchasing Sprint as I was maybe 18-24 months ago.
  12. NorCalLights macrumors 6502a

    Apr 24, 2006
    T-Mobile is just about the only thing putting downward pressure on monthly plan prices in this country. Of course Verizon's CEO would be in favor of that pressure going away.
  13. vitzr macrumors 68030


    Jul 28, 2011
    I agree completely!

    That's why it is so amusing to read all the Android bashing in this forum. The Apple worshipers want Apple to be the only phone. At least that is most certainly the way they come across.

    They take it so personally it's hilarious. Just like Steve Jobs, they act like it's war. Lacking the life experience to fully realize what would happen if Android just went away, they are clueless.
  14. Teh Don Ditty macrumors G4

    Teh Don Ditty

    Jan 15, 2007
    My history may be a bit fuzzy, but the US and USSR didn't become superpowers until the end of WWII.
  15. kas23 macrumors 603


    Oct 28, 2007
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

    If this isn't evidence of the collusion between these two "competitors", then I don't know what is. Why would the CEO of AT&T's biggest competitor want AT&T to be strengthened?

    C'mon Apple, put out a sub-$300 iPhone that doesn't need to be subsidized. These highway robbers called cellphone carriers can shove their 2 year contract.
  16. takezo808 macrumors member

    Aug 7, 2011

    ATT-mobile and VeriSprint....? Then when those two companies merge it will be ATTVERISprinT-Mobile? :confused:
  17. jlgolson Contributing Editor


    Jun 2, 2011
    Durango, CO
    It's not evidence of collusion.

    AT&T and Verizon (and T-Mo, for that matter) all are in desperate need of new spectrum. AT&T's main argument behind T-Mobile is that it needs T-Mo's spectrum.

    Verizon knows this and said that the DoJ needs to let this go through OR free up way more spectrum.

    He's really making a deregulation argument more than anything else which is good for both VZ and T.
  18. mikelegacy macrumors 65816


    Dec 5, 2010
    Pittsburgh, PA
    As a Federal injunction, I wonder if there will be a public forum about this issue? It's a matter of a private company so I doubt the public will be allow to voice their concerns. If we could though, I know about a thousand people who would go to this meeting and tell the DoJ to shove it right back at ATT.
  19. SeaFox macrumors 68020


    Jul 22, 2003
    Somewhere Else
    No it was just be "AT&T"


    Fullsize version here: [link]
  20. accessoriesguy macrumors 6502a

    Jul 8, 2011
    they just want to destroy the lower priced carriers and absorb them themselves. Who needs another bipartisan?
  21. Invincibilizer macrumors 6502a


    Aug 18, 2011
    Agreed, it was in to WW2 and cold war when both USSR and the US were the world superpowers.
  22. DakotaGuy macrumors 68040


    Jan 14, 2002
    South Dakota, USA
    One thing is for sure MaBell sure wasn't Humpty Dumpty. All the pieces are slowly coming right back together.

    AT&T sat on a wall,
    AT&T had a great fall.
    All the regulation agencies and all the corporate men
    Put AT&T together again.

Share This Page