AT&T CEO: T-Mobile Deal 'All About The Consumer' In Much the Same Way a Shark Attack is 'All About the Swimmer' AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson last month went on a softball interview tour of preferred media outlets, pouring it on rather thick in his insistence the his company's $38 billion planned acquisition of T-Mobile is pro-consumer and even patriotic, while downplaying inevitable job losses and the anti-competitive impact of allowing Verizon and AT&T to utterly dominate the wireless market. Tomorrow morning, Stephenson will defend the deal before the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights. From Stephenson's prepared speech tomorrow: This transaction is all about consumers. It's about keeping up with consumer demand. It's about having the capacity to drive innovation and competitive prices for consumers. And most important, it's about giving consumers what they expect - fewer dropped calls, faster speeds and access to state-of-the-art mobile broadband Internet service - whether they live in a large city, a small town, or out in rural areas. Except AT&T's failures have never been because AT&T lacks the resources or money to operate a cutting edge network. AT&T's failures have come from the company's trademark tendency to place investor interests above not only consumers, but the overall health of the company and network. As a result, customer satisfaction and network performance has consistently suffered, and acquiring T-Mobile fixes none of AT&T's real problems. You can take your pick of last place AT&T showings, whether it's Consumer Reports, JD Power & Associates (see the latest customer care, retail sales and call quality surveys), or the American Consumer Satisfaction Index. That's before we get to the fact that AT&T has the lowest wireless caps of any carrier and a network that still struggles to complete phone calls in several markets. AT&T's story is that the T-Mobile acquisition somehow magically fixes these issues. Except as we've been documenting, while the addition of T-Mobile towers and spectrum might benefit AT&T a little in a few select markets, the deal has virtually no impact on AT&T's network capacity or expansion plans. It doesn't change AT&T's corporate culture, and layering T-Mobile integration issues on top of existing support issues (for a company that's only just getting BellSouth integrated) won't magically make AT&T any better at support and service. What the deal will do is make an already massive company with a strong tendency toward anti-competitive behavior much larger, eliminate a competitor from the market while keeping T-Mobile out of Sprint's hands (which make no mistake is the deal's primary goal), and result in the elimination of thousands of redundant AT&T and T-Mobile employees. In addition to AT&T and Verizon's existing dominance of the special access market, they'll also now dominate 75% of the wireless retail market -- which means higher prices. The deal has absolutely no support from real consumer groups or consumers, so suggesting the deal is in any way "pro consumer" is trademark AT&T arrogance. Fortunately for AT&T, they've got a Congress so smothered by AT&T contribution cash, the company's black is white, up is down rhetoric and hubris will see little more than a tongue lashing tomorrow in DC. The deal absolutely will be approved, and the only question right now is how tough the FCC and DOJ conditions will be. If recent history is any indication, it's almost guaranteed that those conditions will be 80% showmanship and 20% substance. AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile is "all about the consumer" in much the same way a shark attack is "all about the swimmer." This deal ends with consumer blood in the water as regulators and politicians are paid to look the other way.
|
 | | Cop out Well this time AT&T, nobody is buying your BS.
--
2010 Ford Fusion Sport | |
|  | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: Cop out Wanna bet  | |
| | | | | Re: Cop out i agree.most people would not have a clue to the stuff us techies know | |
|
|  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | T-Mobile was on the block. AT&T didn't want them to go to a competitor. They had plenty of money to buy them up. So, to stop competitors from getting stronger, they bought T-Mobile. That is the reality. Now having said that, I see nothing wrong with them doing what they did.
But all the talk by AT&T execs & PR department is them trying to sell something that many are against. Their motives for buying T-Mobile isn't to help consumers. It is for AT&T stockholders - as it should be.
So take with a grain of salt all the talk about the merger being consumer friendly. That is marketing - Buyer Beware!
--
Record your speedtest.net results in DSLReports SpeedWave
»www.speedtest.net/wave/afe201cb84d45c88 | |
| | | | | Re: Cop out said by Linklist:T-Mobile was on the block. AT&T didn't want them to go to a competitor. They had plenty of money to buy them up. So, to stop competitors from getting stronger, they bought T-Mobile. That is the reality. Now having said that, I see nothing wrong with them doing what they did.
But all the talk by AT&T execs & PR department is them trying to sell something that many are against. Their motives for buying T-Mobile isn't to help consumers. It is for AT&T stockholders - as it should be.
So take with a grain of salt all the talk about the merger being consumer friendly. That is marketing - Buyer Beware!
1. T-Mo was for sale
2. AT&T is BLEEEEEEEDING customers but has cash
3. T-Mo owns spectrum space, has strong HSPA+ deployment, and has plans for LTE deployment in the medium run.
4. AT&T has shitty "4G" and relatively poor 3G coverage.
In one swift motion AT&T expands its existing 3G coverage, adds customers (and whom were generally very loyal), adds speeds/technology much closer to "4G", and has a strong plan for "real" "4G" LTE in the future.
i don't see how this is bad for any consumer...
and the idea that a company is beholden to the customer is a joke. it's *never* been about that. for any company. ever. Companies are in business for one reason: to make money. They are not charities nor are there to serve a customer.
However, most companies find that in order to make money they need to have happy, satisfied customers who feel they are getting their money's worth. Verizon charges roughly the same money as ATT but has been adding customers pretty much every quarter for 2 years. People feel verizon's server is worth the money while AT&T's isnt. This is reason for ATT to increase their value to the customer and make them happier. This drives business and thus profits.
There is no greater motivation to please customers than making a profit, so to say that there's "excess" profit, which i hear all the time in the media, is a JOKE. | |
| | | | | | Re: Cop out each market is different as it relates to network.
Here in Minnesota, AT&T for me throttles T-Mobile.
1. I get continuous 5-7MBPS down and 1.5-2MBPS up on my Inspire and iPhone 4.
2. When I had T-Mo I never got about 3MBPS on my G2. Coworkers have G2 & MT4G and can not touch my AT&T services.
3. T-MO 3G & "4G"(I call it 3.5G) is a fraction of AT&T here. I live 42 miles south of St. Paul and T-Mo has Edge while I get "4G" on AT&T.
4. I had repeated dropped calls with T-Mo, as for today, my two months AT&T has netted 0 Dropped calls.
Maybe I am lucky not to have issue with AT&T, but in the end my network throttles T-Mo.
As for the merger T-Mo was on the block and available to be purchased and AT&T opted to do so. In the end there was going to be one less competitor no matter how you slice and dice this. T-Mo in 24 months was not going to exist in the current form. | |
|
|  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | "Suspicion Breeds Confidence"
"Trust in haste, Regret at leisure"
"Don't suspect a friend, report him"
"AT&T and T-Mobile merger is all about the consumer."
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
| | | | NOTHING a corporation does is for the benefit of a customer, except if:
- there is competition
- the government actively investigates and punishes collusion agreements
By their own admission, corporations are for the benefit of the shareholders (execs in my opinion, really). Why should we believe the "benefit for the consumers" propaganda ? | |
| | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: Cop out said by WernerSchutz:By their own admission, corporations are for the benefit of the shareholders (execs in my opinion, really). Why should we believe the "benefit for the consumers" propaganda ?
Some actions by corporations, including mergers, can benefit consumers. But that isn't the main reasons for corporate actions. Happy consumers can be good for stockholders. Happy consumers consume more and bring in more revenue. So to claim corporations are anti-consumer is actually incorrect. Just don't fall for those claiming being pro consumer is what motivates a corporation's strategy. Being pro consumer can be a useful tactic however.
--
Record your speedtest.net results in DSLReports SpeedWave
»www.speedtest.net/wave/afe201cb84d45c88 | |
|
| | |  fuziwuziNot born yesterdayPremium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA | Re: Can't live with them, can't live without them I don't believe that AT&T-bought piece of drivel for a moment. | |
| | | | The article is rather misleading. T-Mobile is still experiencing ridiculous 25% profit margins. That's an extremely healthy company. Their problem stems from their attempts to transition from a niche, low-cost provider to a true national competitor. They've been expanding their territory rapidly and their last presentation to shareholders revealed plans to expand their network to Verizon-size.
It's true that before a couple of years ago they had serious underinvestment problems. It wasn't until recently that their parent company finally gave T-Mobile the freedom to invest their profits the way they see fit in order to maximize the health of the company. | |
| | | | | Re: Can't live with them, can't live without them You never cite any sources while everyone else that refutes your arguments does. So why should anyone believe you when you say that T-Mobile has 25% profit margins? | |
|
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| If this was 'all about the consumer' Then AT&T wouldn't be so quick to...
a) cap data at 2GB with overages
b) effectively get rid of all non data / txt devices (not many flip phones available any more)
c) pushing 'add ons' as 'plan change' to have those on current plans end up changing plans + having to deal with proration (ends up with overage possibility)
More ways to charge - while T-Mobile had a more generous allowance + no overage 'charge'. This will not benefit a consumer. | |
| | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: If this was 'all about the consumer' said by en103:Then AT&T wouldn't be so quick to...
a) cap data at 2GB with overages
b) effectively get rid of all non data / txt devices (not many flip phones available any more)
c) pushing 'add ons' as 'plan change' to have those on current plans end up changing plans + having to deal with proration (ends up with overage possibility)
More ways to charge - while T-Mobile had a more generous allowance + no overage 'charge'. This will not benefit a consumer.
a) Caps are pro-consumer. They lower your entry cost; its up to you to choose how much you pay.
b) There are plenty of non-data phones available, if you bother to look.
c) add-ons and upgrades have always had catches. You don't have to opt for them.
No one has to buy a "smart" phone or sign a multi-year contract. | |
| | |  Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Re: If this was 'all about the consumer' said by elray:a) Caps are pro-consumer. They lower your entry cost; its up to you to choose how much you pay. Bullsh*t.. and tons of it.
said by elray:b) There are plenty of non-data phones available, if you bother to look. Why don't you name a few for us.. TracFone-type phones are not part of this.
said by elray:c) add-ons and upgrades have always had catches. You don't have to opt for them. Unless one feature becomes an add-on or "upgrade" in the future. I can see us going backwards. Soon we'll have plans that are about equal to the plans in the 80's. You'll pay just to have the privilege of having a cell phone.. then you have to buy "addons" or "upgrades" to actually use your phone.
said by elray:No one has to buy a "smart" phone or sign a multi-year contract. Sure.. You can go with Straight Talk, TracFone, or Net10. Maybe Boost mobile (if you have coverage). I heard Boost has an Android phone now.
--
Bresnan 18M/1M
MyWS[i7-870@4.1GHz,16GB RAM,2x1TB HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2GHz,2GB RAM,120GB HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1GHz,512MB RAM,18GB HDD,SMC 8432BTA,2xDigital DE504,Compaq NC3131,Intel Pro/1000MT,IBM Gbit Ethernet-SX,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,Gentoo Linux] | |
| | | | | | | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | Re: If this was 'all about the consumer' You sir, need to learn math. I am a heavy data user on AT&T. Thus, I SAVE $60 PER YEAR with the new plans compared to what they used to have. That's pro-consumer. | |
| | | | |  SeleniaI love DebianPremium
join:2006-09-22
Lanesboro, MA
kudos:2 | Re: If this was 'all about the consumer' Agreed. I am a 3-4GB/month smartphone user on AT&T. Under the current plans, with a 2GB cap, this comes to $35-$45. Under the old plan, I would have to fork up $60 for 5GB and god forbid should I had actually used that 5GB and gone a little over with .05/MB($52.50/GB) overages. 5GB would be $55 under the new plans, with overages still running $10/GB.
To really deflate this annoying argument
10GB, old plan.
$59.99+$262.50(5*$52.50)=$321.49
10GB, new plan
$25+$80(8*10)=$105
There, I feel like some people needed the math done for them. Now it is done for them!
--
A fool thinks they know everything.
A wise person knows enough to know they couldn't possibly know everything.
There are zealots for every OS, like every religion. They do not represent the majority of users for either. | |
| | | | | | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | Re: If this was 'all about the consumer' Except that the 5GB plan was for datacards, not smartphones. Smartphones had $30 unlimited. The point is, people don't need more than 2GB, and thus the new system saves them money. | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·Mediacom
 ·T-Mobile US
2 edits | said by Elroy6: a) Caps are pro-consumer. They lower your entry cost; its up to you to choose how much you pay. The same troll guy who cried me over the river when I said about big blue chip companies cutting benefits to their dedicated loyal long term employes and sending them in the middle of nowhere to cut benefits or terminate their employment.
Try yourself get years of experience, college education which is not cheap and then get hired for pay that you have to live on paycheck to paycheck and live very tight on budget. Or even better, go abroad as part of firm going "global" and work in china or brazil for local wages where you would have no chance to make enough money to come back to the US. | |
| | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: If this was 'all about the consumer' said by chgo_man99:said by Elroy6: a) Caps are pro-consumer. They lower your entry cost; its up to you to choose how much you pay. The same troll guy who cried me over the river when I said about big blue chip companies cutting benefits to their dedicated loyal long term employes and sending them in the middle of nowhere to cut benefits or terminate their employment. Try yourself get years of experience, college education which is not cheap and then get hired for pay that you have to live on paycheck to paycheck and live very tight on budget. Or even better, go abroad as part of firm going "global" and work in china or brazil for local wages where you would have no chance to make enough money to come back to the US. So go cry me another river.
Blue chip companies are not required to stay in the US and give you a job with benefits, nor will they. That ain't gonna change.
So you went out and 'invested' a large sum in a not-so-worthwhile college education and built up years of experience. So what? Why would you think that entitles you to anything?
Life is not fair, and it never will be, but you are blessed, in this country, to at least have the opportunity to succeed from nothing, provided you're willing to work your butt off and take some chances.
Learn to live on a budget. That means saving for a rainy day, not living "paycheck to paycheck". If it means sleeping in your car, riding your bike to work, working 2-3 jobs, eating ramen and foregoing Wireless Broadband, "Smart" phones, Pay TV, and living four to a room ... thats what you do. Eventually, for many, your efforts and discipline will pay off many-fold.
Try investing some of your savings in companies you "hate" so much, so when they do take "your" job overseas, you reap some dividends.
BTW, whose Elroy? | |
| | | | | Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Re: If this was 'all about the consumer' said by elray:So go cry me another river.
Blue chip companies are not required to stay in the US and give you a job with benefits, nor will they. That ain't gonna change.
So you went out and 'invested' a large sum in a not-so-worthwhile college education and built up years of experience. So what? Why would you think that entitles you to anything?
Life is not fair, and it never will be, but you are blessed, in this country, to at least have the opportunity to succeed from nothing, provided you're willing to work your butt off and take some chances.
Learn to live on a budget. That means saving for a rainy day, not living "paycheck to paycheck". If it means sleeping in your car, riding your bike to work, working 2-3 jobs, eating ramen and foregoing Wireless Broadband, "Smart" phones, Pay TV, and living four to a room ... thats what you do. Eventually, for many, your efforts and discipline will pay off many-fold.
Try investing some of your savings in companies you "hate" so much, so when they do take "your" job overseas, you reap some dividends. In his own words, "F**k this country! Who cares what the corporations do as long as I get more money!"
That pretty much sums his entire post up.
--
Bresnan 18M/1M
MyWS[i7-870@4.1GHz,16GB RAM,2x1TB HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2GHz,2GB RAM,120GB HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1GHz,512MB RAM,18GB HDD,SMC 8432BTA,2xDigital DE504,Compaq NC3131,Intel Pro/1000MT,IBM Gbit Ethernet-SX,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,Gentoo Linux] | |
| | | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: If this was 'all about the consumer' said by Simba7:said by elray:Blue chip companies are not required to stay in the US and give you a job with benefits, nor will they. That ain't gonna change.
Learn to live on a budget. That means saving for a rainy day, not living "paycheck to paycheck". If it means sleeping in your car, riding your bike to work, working 2-3 jobs, eating ramen and foregoing Wireless Broadband, "Smart" phones, Pay TV, and living four to a room ... thats what you do. Eventually, for many, your efforts and discipline will pay off many-fold.
Try investing some of your savings in companies you "hate" so much, so when they do take "your" job overseas, you reap some dividends. In his own words, "F**k this country! Who cares what the corporations do as long as I get more money!" Well, I'd rather the Left stop oppressing and persecuting said corporations, so they'd have incentive to stay here. But as we witness in California, daily, that isn't going to happen.
Investing in "evil" companies may be amoral, but it puts food on the table. I don't like AT&T, Verizon, Microsoft, Google, Exxon, et al, for many of their corporate acts, but they earn handsome returns over time.
Do you think all of your actions, in every aspect of your life, are harmless and just?
What would you suggest? What, should we all buy 1% CDs? | |
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Mediacom
·T-Mobile US
2 edits | Re: If this was 'all about the consumer' Well, I'd rather the Left stop oppressing and persecuting said corporations, so they'd have incentive to stay here...
Investing in "evil" companies may be amoral, but it puts food on the table. I don't like AT&T, Verizon, Microsoft, Google, Exxon, et al, for many of their corporate acts, but they earn handsome returns over time.
Do you think all of your actions, in every aspect of your life, are harmless and just?
What would you suggest? What, should we all buy 1% CDs?
What entitles you to negotiate price before you purchase a new car?
Shouldn't u just take whatever they throw at you? Because this is what you essentially said in your posts which makes no sense.
As for your arrogant comment on education, it seems like you think we never lived through a recession. But its still no excuse for some companies to act unethically even when what they do is legal. Underemployment stinks nearly as bad as unemployment, the only difference is money comes not from your taxes but from loans, debts which eventually have taken a toll on taxpayer's money and yours. This is why we have government to protect people, not just corporations.
Also from your ignorant speech it seems like you have never been out of the US and haven't seen on your eyes what is life out there.
Wanna talk about "then why don't you get out there?" I have question for you? Why don't you get out of Cal and move to Texas or Washington if you so don't like there? Lol. | |
|
| | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Have you submitted your Resume to AT&T marketing yet? | |
| | | | | said by elray:a) Caps are pro-consumer. They lower your entry cost; its up to you to choose how much you pay.
LOL. That's the most laughably transparent corporate shilling I've seen in a while on this site. You've certainly given openbox and TK a run for the money.
You're going to have to do a lot better job than that if you want to sell the merger to people with actual experience with caps.
God I'm just cracking up. That's such an embarrassingly bad argument. | |
|
| BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| a) I agree that they should have done caps that just throttled at 2GB, BUT it still makes the network faster and chops $5 off of the price of data, as well as $15 for very light users.
b) Consumers don't want dumbphones. There are still a few out there for free, and they are generally pretty good, but consumers aren't buying post-paid dumbphones.
c) That's just an accounting issue. | |
|
 OneEye
join:2006-04-15
Peachtree City, GA | Take the AT&T medicine and like it or else... Not only has AT&T bought and paid the fees necessary to purchase Congressional approval; there's no way the people can win when AT&T former chief lobbyist is now Obama's Chief of Staff.
Bend over Americans and take your medicine. | |
|  GbcueP.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 | How Does Paying More Benefit Consumer? As a longstanding T-Mobile customer on their robust 4G HSPA+ nationwide network, how does paying more for service benefit me, the consumer?
AT&T's rate plans are 20-40% higher than T-Mobile's for even less minutes, texts, and data!
--
My Blog 2.2 | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
 IllIlIlllIllEliteDataPremium
join:2003-07-06
Hampton Bays, NY
kudos:7 | did we really have to use a thumb-nail picture of this schmuck for the news ?
--
☺ | |
|  DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1 | add verizon too The feds should make it have to take verizon too, this way it will truely be the death star. | |
| | | network capacity "the deal has virtually no impact on AT&T's network capacity"
By purchasing T-Mobile, AT&T will be gaining 36,000 cell towers. How can you say that doesn't affect their network capacity? | |
| | | | Re: network capacity Because the great majority of them are redundant, and because the network problems are at the back end, not at the towers.
I'm a current T-mobile subscriber. I'll change to Verizon before I'll be absorbed by AT&T. I'm currently abandoning AT&T's DSL service and I'll be damned if I'll let them reabsorb me. I'd rather not have a phone at all. | |
| | | Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Re: network capacity said by pjcamp :I'm a current T-mobile subscriber. I'll change to Verizon before I'll be absorbed by AT&T. I'm currently abandoning AT&T's DSL service and I'll be damned if I'll let them reabsorb me. I'd rather not have a phone at all. Like me when I found out at&t was taking over Alltel here. I ditched them in a heartbeat, even though I had a couple weeks left of my contract.
--
Bresnan 18M/1M
MyWS[i7-870@4.1GHz,16GB RAM,2x1TB HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2GHz,2GB RAM,120GB HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1GHz,512MB RAM,18GB HDD,SMC 8432BTA,2xDigital DE504,Compaq NC3131,Intel Pro/1000MT,IBM Gbit Ethernet-SX,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,Gentoo Linux] | |
|
|  mmay149qPremium
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX
kudos:48 | said by footballdude:By purchasing T-Mobile, AT&T will be gaining 36,000 cell towers. How can you say that doesn't affect their network capacity?
Because capacity comes in backhaul and backbones that are powering that backhaul out to "Al Gore's intertubes" adding more towers doesn't really give you more capacity, it does give you a better chance of getting a better signal, especially in large cities, but I'm pretty sure that this is what Karl meant by that.
Matt
--
I am no longer an AT&T Employee. Check out my kudos! »/profile/1626573
Have U-verse questions? Please email uversecare@att.com and they will assist you!!  | |
|
 Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDISPremium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX | Love the shark attack analogy I think it fits perfectly here.
I wonder, did Randall get possessed by the spirit of Baghdad Bob? He sure seems to be acting like him, saying these things with a straight face when the rest of us know he's flat out lying.
--
I, for one, welcome our new Computer Overlords. | |
|  sapoCruising Down Memory LanePremium
join:2002-09-16
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1 | Typical... I guess it's time for our revolution when have to watch politicians bought out publicly. The only thing AT&T does decently is their stock. With so much money being in phones this is a big disappointment. | |
| BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| Actually true I hate how DSLReports is blatantly biased against AT&T. While they do a lot of stupid sh*t (like not roll out fiber), buying T-Mo is a good move. The combined network will have absolutely awesome HSPA+ capacity spanning both the CLR and PCS bands, the AWS spectrum is great for 4G capacity long term, and the economies of scale will be fantastic.
It also helps to bring more competition to the market, as right now outside of urban areas, there are two providers stuck in a deadlock, and this will help to break some of the deadlock and get them competing again. This, combined with Verizon's aggressive LTE rollout is all good for the consumer. | |
| | | | Re: Actually true?? said by BiggA:I hate how DSLReports is blatantly biased against AT&T. While they do a lot of stupid sh*t (like not roll out fiber), buying T-Mo is a good move. The combined network will have absolutely awesome HSPA+ capacity spanning both the CLR and PCS bands, the AWS spectrum is great for 4G capacity long term, and the economies of scale will be fantastic.
It also helps to bring more competition to the market, as right now outside of urban areas, there are two providers stuck in a deadlock, and this will help to break some of the deadlock and get them competing again. This, combined with Verizon's aggressive LTE rollout is all good for the consumer.
Are you kidding me? They will ditch the TMO Leased Space and/or any owned towers, they will not re-use TMO fequencies, etc. There is nothing good about this deal except financial gain through stocks. In that way it is a smart move. Being a TMO Customer, I will be moving on to VZ, and look at the Domain I am posting from....here comes the black heli /runs | |
| | | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | Re: Actually true?? They will have to get rid of duplicate ones, but they will use T-Mobile's cell sties to increase capacity. It will put them 8 years ahead in SF, 5 years in NYC, etc.
@Krk: It's totally unbalanced, its not representative of reality. | |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Actually true said by BiggA:I hate how DSLReports is blatantly biased against AT&T. Nah. They are just on our side, not lying corporate BS side. If they truly were as biased as you say, they'd just ban you for your post.
They don't. There's already a million sites the pour out the Pro-Corporation PR as news. It's nice to hear the other side for a change.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | Cost savings were the bigger motivation to buy T-mobile USA I think AT&T's motivation to buy T-mobile USA was all about cost savings. They can pick up a distressed property like T-mobile USA for practically peanuts because of the tens of billions in costs savings the deal will produce.
I don't think Sprint was much of a thought to AT&T or at best it was a very distant second to the cost savings. Does anyone really believe that Sprint could successfully integrate T-mobile USA after the failed Nextel merger? If competition were a bigger issue, I think AT&T would have let T-mobile USA get taken over by Sprint. Sprint would have ended up bankrupt at the end of that mess. That's assuming Sprint could even afford T-mobile USA. In fact the rumor was that Sprint couldn't even get a deal done because there was a lot of bickering about valuation. T-mobile USA may not have been able to even sell itself for Sprint's lowball price. | |
| | GbcueP.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 | Re: Cost savings were the bigger motivation to buy T-mobile USA said by sparc:I think AT&T's motivation to buy T-mobile USA was all about cost savings. They can pick up a distressed property like T-mobile USA for practically peanuts because of the tens of billions in costs savings the deal will produce.
I don't think Sprint was much of a thought to AT&T or at best it was a very distant second to the cost savings. Does anyone really believe that Sprint could successfully integrate T-mobile USA after the failed Nextel merger? If competition were a bigger issue, I think AT&T would have let T-mobile USA get taken over by Sprint. Sprint would have ended up bankrupt at the end of that mess. That's assuming Sprint could even afford T-mobile USA. In fact the rumor was that Sprint couldn't even get a deal done because there was a lot of bickering about valuation. T-mobile USA may not have been able to even sell itself for Sprint's lowball price.
Yes, $39-billion is "peanuts".
So instead of improving their coverage and backhaul, AT&T just shows their customers they have $39 billion in cash lying around.
--
My Blog 2.2 | |
| | | | said by sparc:I think AT&T's motivation to buy T-mobile USA was all about cost savings. They can pick up a distressed property like T-mobile USA for practically peanuts because of the tens of billions in costs savings the deal will produce.
T-Mobile is valued at $16 billion. AT&T is paying $39 billion. That's close to a 150% premium! T-Mobile also has profit margins of 25%. They're a very healthy company, and AT&T's purchase is all about eliminating competition. | |
|
| Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Mediacom
·T-Mobile US
1 edit | As customers we have competitive choices for voice Plans But terrible choice for wireless broadband 3G/4g regardless of having 4 bigs, some regional like us cellular and few mnvo. There is no entry level data plans except for tablets, netbooks not any data Plan for less than 50. Even don't Sk me about prepaid it's pahetic. While most phones have tethering capability which costs slightly more or is free, I would wanna plans for broadband card cheaper or come with bigger caps.
There is many advantages of having USB stick or hotspot over tethering phone. | |
| Reviews:
·Charter
| Why does no one get the bigger picture here? While other companies are busy laying out (And building) their wimax/lte next gen broadband, at&t is buying up tons of 3g... Because it's cheap.
It's like somebody who waits until a computer goes on sale at the goodwill and buys it... Even if it sucks and uses windows 95.
Not that anyone should expect more from the company that brought us Uverse... | |
| | | about the photos of the CEO's When I saw the article announcing the merger they showed both pictures of their respective CEO's .. Ive gotta say the tmo's ceo is HOT and good looking .. Att's ceo looks like a creep .. good God get a botox treatment some lasik or contacts and do something with your hair .. you look like a pedophile | |
| | OneEye
join:2006-04-15
Peachtree City, GA | Re: about the photos of the CEO's Is that a hair piece that Stephenson is wearing? | |
| | | |
| | Actually... Hey. I just would like you to know that you're exaggerating. In the same way that AT&T is "arrogant," as are you, in considering that this couldn't possibly benefit consumers. As a T-Mobile customer, I am excited about
-access to a much larger HSPA+ coverage area,
-earlier access to the ludicrous data speeds offered by 4G LTE, and
-a bigger network of free mobile-to-mobile calls--all of my siblings and both parents have AT&T or T-Mobile, so this merger will bring all of them into one network, and reduce the number of minutes I use.
Though I will be sorry to see the friendly spunk, consumer-oriented attitude, and (slightly) cheaper rate plans of T-Mobile go, and I am bothered somewhat about the things that a solitary GSM carrier could impose on its suppliers, I recognize that I will be joining a combined network that is in a much better position to offer me a massive coverage area (rivaling Verizon's) and improved service with fewer dropped calls and better data speeds because of bandwidth aggregation. AT&T may not have the best track record for customer satisfaction, but Deutsche Telekom will still have a hand in our management, with an estimated 8% interest in AT&T's shares. I am confident that they will do right by us as T-Mobile users, and honor our existing prices until we choose to upgrade to new phones and plans down the road. The combined company would be foolish indeed to raise their rate plans or cell phone prices higher than they already are, because VZW and Sprint/Nextel are still in a good position to keep the new carrier in check. 41% marketshare is a far cry from a monopoly. It's not even a majority. How could they be expected to engage in "anti-competitive behavior" if they don't even control more of the market than their two biggest competitors combined?
As you can see, I have done my homework. I know what's good and bad about this merger, but in spite of both, I'm looking forward to it. Perhaps the consumers and advocacy groups you claim to represent dislike this merger simply because they aren't knowledgeable enough? | |
| | | | Re: Actually... "AT&T may not have the best track record for customer satisfaction, but Deutsche Telekom will still have a hand in our management, with an estimated 8% interest in AT&T's shares."
AT&T has a TERRIBLE record for customer satisfaction. Anything that removes a competitor from the picture is bad for the customer.
8% is very little. | |
|
| | at&t is kinda buying itself with this TMO tomfoolery at&t has a sizable holding with Deutch Telekom. If memory serves, at&t even gets to name a member of the board of directors. So, aren't they basically paying themselves for something?
I do admit that the 'new' at&t isn't much like the old AT&T.
No! They're worse! This deal isn't about consumers! Deutch Telekom wanted to cash in, at&t didn't want anyone else to get TMO, *and* it could help some with the iPhone droppings (calls). More cells + more backhaul.
I pray the deal has MEGA conditions attached to it, if it's approved at all, but I AM capable of living within the confines of reality and I know the FCC and DOJ will probably rubberstamp this.
I KNOW! Write to your elected representatives in Congress to send at&t a message. The content of said message, "NO!"
Demand that the Congress tell at&t "NO!" and while you're at it, force them to divest U-Verse & Internet Services.
Spin 'em off! Spin' 'em off! WAY OFF!
I shall go write to my elected Congresspeople now  | |
| | | Nonsense. An utter lie. Its all about the shareholder. The customer is just a nuisance that they have to begrudgingly deal with so they can make a quick buck to put in the pocket of the shareholders. They should be honest about this instead of lieing. | |
|
| |
|
|
·