NuuuuUUUUUUUUuuuuuu! (AT&T buys T-Mobile)

[LinktheDeme]

double post!

thought this was funny and appropriate for the thread:

It's pretty awesome how the government spent lots of U.S. tax dollars breaking the company apart from years and years because "monopolies are bad!". And now they are encouraging the consolidation of AT&T and their continued growth, changing the angle that "AT&T needs to be able to compete", pretty much wasting all of the U.S. tax dollars spent.

And these are the same people in charge of our health care. . .

[Syntex]

So AT&T and T-Mobile are getting married? I hear there will be no reception afterwards.

[Melena]

I've been with T-Mobile for 6+ years and there service has been terrible in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area for as long as I can remember. I only stuck with them this long because of their cheap plans and I keep signing a 2 year contract everytime a new phone comes out. The merge with AT&T should improve the quality of T-Mobile but I'm hearing that both AT&T and Verizon are going to scrap their "upgrade" programs all together. The ones were they give you $xxx off if you renew your contract. I'm not sure how much truth is in that but I'm leaning more and more towards Sprint who let you fully upgrade your phone every 12 months instead of every 22 months like T-Mobile.

As much as I hate sprint, if that's the case I may just bite the bullet once my wife reaches her second year on her phone and push us over to sprint. Cheaper then AT&T and I get a government discount since my county uses them for air cards and mobile data.

[Egon]

Seems to me, people either love T-Mo or hate it. Personally, I love it. Best Edge speeds where I live, and HSPA+ or whatever its called is epic when I drive to Nashville or Clarksville. I just renewed my contract in January so at least I will still have good prices, but I just know my internet speeds are going to crash

[Cantih]

stuff

Ma Bell 2.0 is gonna be Skynet, I swear.

[Souj]

FYI this still isn't guaranteed to happen.
There's a government review of the sale next Sunday (which could tell them no, or hold the sale off for a long while.), to make sure blah blah blah economy blah blah fair prices blah


and I like T-Mobile's service. It's pretty cheap and I have no connection problems. My only complaint is their useless insurance, which is probably only just as useless as all other phone company's insurance.

[Shuichi]

Ma Bell 2.0 is gonna be Skynet, I swear.

Once ATT and Google merges, this will be when Skynet is born. You heard it here first. Robot apocalypse incoming.

[LiquidFriend]

FYI this still isn't guaranteed to happen.
There's a government review of the sale next Sunday (which could tell them no, or hold the sale off for a long while.), to make sure blah blah blah economy blah blah fair prices blah


and I like T-Mobile's service. It's pretty cheap and I have no connection problems. My only complaint is their useless insurance, which is probably only just as useless as all other phone company's insurance.

Whens the last time the government has actually not approved something like this though?

[Antithesis]

Update:

US government files to block proposed AT&T / T-Mobile merger
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget....1314801510.jpg

You heard right. Bloomberg is reporting that the United States government (!) just filed court papers in Washington, D.C. to block the much ballyhooed tie-up between AT&T and T-Mobile USA. Oddly enough, T-Mobile and AT&T promised this morning that a total of 5,000 jobs would be hand delivered to the US if the two telcos were allowed to become one, but it'll take a heck of a lot more convincing now. For what it's worth, this doesn't mean that the deal is or isn't happening -- it's just another step in the process -- but it most certainly doesn't bode well for proponents. Nor for AT&T's share price.

According to the report, the Justice Department feels that the deal would "substantially lessen competition" in the wireless space. In fact, it boldly stated the following: "AT&T's elimination of T-Mobile as an independent, low-priced rival would remove a significant competitive force from the market." If things end up falling apart, it's important to remember that AT&T would be forced to pay Deutsche Telekom $3 billion as a break-up fee, which ought to make Tiger Woods' misfortunes look like an outright bargain.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/31/u...mobile-merger/

[Antithesis]

As a bonus, At&t's stock is now down four percent.

[Senoska]

Isn't that a bitch? We have laws against monopolies. They suck. I don't know about you guys, but AT&T's prices are fucking outrageous. The whole reason capitalism is supposed to work is that there is competition that forces the company to be competitive. Since the 1970's, these corporations have made so much money that if they don't like the competition, they just buy them. This is happening all the time now for just outrageous amounts of money. These types of things are great for shareholders because they're completely removing an element of their competition, but for the consumer, its shit. The worst part about that post is the economy is in a shitty position, and they're almost bribing us with jobs to let them do something that is potentially illegal. "Yeah, we're creating a monopoly, but I'll give you these 5,000 jobs if you keep your mouth shut."

Its good to see the government stepped up and blocked this, even for the time being. If this purchase goes through, I'm going to be fairly pissed off at our new AT&T wiretapping overlords.

[Pandora]

was personally thinking of switching to T-Mobile, due to paying 300/mo for verizon is fucking breaking me.

I guess I'll have to continue breakin da bank

[Tweek]

How is it a monopoly when you still have VZW out there? You understand what monopoly means?


P.S. Senoska it's pretty well known that VZW cost more than AT&T take off the blinders for a bit

[Melena]

You have Verizon and Sprint, as well as to a lesser extent Virgin Mobile, to go along with Metro PCS and Boost Mobile if you want no contracts. The biggest fish in the pond swallowing the smallest fish (of the big 4) does not make a monopoly. A better comparison to a Monopoly would be how the Cable & Phone companies have pretty much cock blocked anyone else from providing any internet to users. I keep hearing about how having FiOS is like being touched by an angel, but due to AT&T/Comcast, I'll never get to feel that joy.

[Mazmaz]

Was about to make a bailout joke until I saw the government news. Now if only they did it for the banks!

[dejet]

How is it a monopoly when you still have VZW out there? You understand what monopoly means?


P.S. Senoska it's pretty well known that VZW cost more than AT&T take off the blinders for a bit

Um... just because there is one or two other strong companies does not mean its good for the consumer. T-mobile is like half the price of At&T/Verizon pricing. Its a major hit to people who want all the perks for much less of a price. Yes their service is not as good(or fast) but it an option that for many people who dont want to pay $100+ for one line.

According to the report, the Justice Department feels that the deal would "substantially lessen competition" in the wireless space. In fact, it boldly stated the following: "AT&T's elimination of T-Mobile as an independent, low-priced rival would remove a significant competitive force from the market."

not once do they use the word monopoly. Just that it will be a direct hit to competition. Its more of a preventative measure to what could lead to a Monopoly. Why wait till they kick everyone else out before doing anything?

[Salodin]

It's closer to a monopoly. And when your only other competitor is already the most expensive other mobile option, using competition to "keep prices down" doesn't exactly work...

[Souj]

Isn't that a bitch? We have laws against monopolies. They suck. I don't know about you guys, but AT&T's prices are fucking outrageous. The whole reason capitalism is supposed to work is that there is competition that forces the company to be competitive. Since the 1970's, these corporations have made so much money that if they don't like the competition, they just buy them. This is happening all the time now for just outrageous amounts of money. These types of things are great for shareholders because they're completely removing an element of their competition, but for the consumer, its shit.

As much as I agree, aren't the smaller businesses just as guilty as the bigger corporations? Greed motivates the smaller business to sell out just as it motivates the bigger business to buy it.
That's not to confuse smaller businesses that get destroyed by big business and don't really have a choice in the matter other than going bankrupt

[Senoska]

How is it a monopoly when you still have VZW out there? You understand what monopoly means?


P.S. Senoska it's pretty well known that VZW cost more than AT&T take off the blinders for a bit

Victor Meena, a CEO of a small rural carrier known as cellular south (8th in the country, past Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, MetroPCS, and Leap) recently came out against the merger. He argued that this is a step backwards into a duopoly, which is true. If we reduce competition in the market to a duopoly, price jacking and non-competitive rates are sure to follow.

When I began in this business in the late-1980s, there was a local duopoly in every market … Carriers had virtually no market incentive to innovate or improve service offerings … In a duopoly, the market can quickly reach equilibrium and, if both providers are reasonably happy with their position, innovation stagnates and prices rise.
The industry changed for the better in the late 1990s, when the FCC, pursuant to Congressional mandate, auctioned off PCS licenses and a substantial number of competitive carriers entered markets — launching a new, healthy competitive era of wireless in the U.S.
... But this all began to change in the middle of the last decade. Through unfettered mergers and acquisitions, it has become clear that our industry is on a glide path toward Ma Bell reconstituting herself into the 2 Bell Sisters of the wireless industry: AT&T Wireless and Verizon Wireless.
... Not surprisingly, this concentration of market power has led to less choice for consumers and the routine abuse of market power in an effort to prevent competition at every turn. Specifically, AT&T has used its enormous acquired scale to

1. Restrict competitive carrier and consumer access to devices;
2. Withhold roaming agreements; and
3. Leverage its control over device and infrastructure vendors to Balkanize new spectrum and slow the deployment of 4G LTE technology in the U.S

Meena and Sprint CEO Dan Hasse pointed out two negative issues with increasing market power. Hesse is the chairman of the CTIA and has been trying to negotiate lower rates for wireline backhall for cellular base stations. These are things that AT&T and Verizon want to be high, but every other company in the business wants them lowered. This is because they have unbelievable amounts of control over the industry, and it stifles any chance at competition. This means for the consumer, there are less smaller carriers able to find roaming agreements for 3G and 4G data. This was mandated by the FCC last month.

Two companies, AT&T and Verizon own 80% of the market. Have you ever seen AT&T advertise against companies like Metro PCS or Cricket/Leap? No. Because they don't need to. This is the foundation of capitalism. If you don't have competition, you don't have to be competitive.

Meena said this:

The prospect of this transaction brings us to a critical decision point for policy-makers: are we are going to continue down the path toward an era of nationwide duopoly, or are we going to lay the foundation for a second competitive era in wireless. There is no third option – either AT&T will be allowed to acquire T-Mobile (paving the way for Verizon to acquire Sprint and cementing a national wireless duopoly); or it will not.
If AT&T’s takeover of T-Mobile is approved, all that will remain is the endgame, where the remaining non-Bell carriers wait their turn to be acquired or bled dry by the biggest two carriers.

[I]f the takeover goes forward, policymakers must begin preparations to regulate every aspect of the day-to-day business of the duopolists. Without effective competition as a check on market abuses, the government will have to interject itself to ensure that consumers – the true owners of wireless spectrum – are protected. This means subjecting a future wireless communications duopoly to the same type of regulatory oversight that wireline telephone and electrical power utilities have operated under for decades.

This leaves us with a choice. Either we allow the merger to happen and have government regulate the industry, which doesnt allow smaller carriers any chance at the business, or we block the merger and allow competition into the scheme of this. In teams of monopoly, you're right, I misspoke. Its a duopoly at best. However, if AT&T were to acquire T-Mobile, it would give AT&T a HUGE boost in market share, this is bad for the consumer, its bad for carriers, and the only person its good for would be AT&T stock holders.

[dejet]

Also, dont most smaller wireless providers buy tower time or something? In other words metro PCS(and others like it) rents towers from sprint/AT&T/Verizon. T mobile owns their own towers. unlike smaller ones.

edit:Senoska, lets not forget that sprint is still on a down slope. Its only a matter of time before talks of its takeover start to happen. They still lost money in Q1