reply to discussion |
Results 16 to 30 of 30
- 08-31-2011, 10:31 PM #16Steve SobolGuest
Re: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-Mobile USA by AT&T
In article <[email protected]>, Todd Allcock says...
> I suspect it would. The number three and four competitors, both on the
> edge of irrelevancy, merging to become a potentially strong number three?
> The Feds could easily get behind that.
Sprint and T-Mo have the same weaknesses. You know what I think? I think
a Sprint/T-Mo merger is as smart as the Sprint/Nextel merger was years
ago. In other words, not at all.
> Whether Sprint acquiring yet another incompatible network after
> struggling with their Nextel merger is a good idea, is an entirely
> different issue, of course. I think if Sprint and T-Mo had
> compatible technologies, it would've happened already, making this AT&T
> deal moot.
Quite possibly.
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
[email protected]
› See More: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-Mobile USAby AT&T
- 08-31-2011, 10:31 PM #17Steve SobolGuest
Re: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-Mobile USA by AT&T
In article <[email protected]>, SMS says...
> >> It would not be surprising to see an extensive cross-roaming
agreement
> >> between AT&T and T-Mobile as a way of temporarily solving AT&T's
> >> capacity issues
> >
> > ATT doesn't have capacity issues. They have intelligence issues. They
> > have a lot of spectrum that they aren't using, which is stupid.
>
> They would like that T-Mobile spectrum because so much of it is at 1900
> MHz. To use their 700 MHz spectrum means a whole new line of handsets.
AT&T has not hesitated to force people into new handsets before.
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
[email protected]
- 09-01-2011, 09:23 AM #18SMSGuest
Re: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-MobileUSA by AT&T
On 9/1/2011 5:38 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
> It could increase competition if you had 3 healthy companies
> instead of 2 that had resources and 2 that did not. Now, you essentially
> have a duopoly by default.
That's why a Sprint/T-Mobile merger would likely have gone through,
though it would still not have resulted in a strong third competitor
because the two companies have the same major weakness in terms of rural
coverage. They have plenty of spectrum, but as Todd pointed out, so does
AT&T, it's just at the wrong frequency for current devices.
T-Mobile customers might end up the big winner here because of the
roaming agreement that's part of the penalty for the deal failing.
AT&T is gearing up for a fight, but it's very rare for a company to
succeed against the Justice Department.
- 09-01-2011, 11:00 AM #19sms88Guest
Re: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-MobileUSA by AT&T
On 9/1/2011 9:56 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> SMS<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> AT&T is gearing up for a fight, but it's very rare for a company to
>> succeed against the Justice Department.
>
> That alone probably helps Sprint by dividing management's attention and
> taking up resources.
Beyond blocking the acquisition of T-Mobile U.S.A., it may be time to
break up AT&T again.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsCp-1hgfxI>
- 09-01-2011, 12:33 PM #20CameoGuest
Re: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-Mobile USA by AT&T
"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's why a Sprint/T-Mobile merger would likely have gone through,
> though it would still not have resulted in a strong third competitor
> because the two companies have the same major weakness in terms of
> rural coverage. They have plenty of spectrum, but as Todd pointed out,
> so does AT&T, it's just at the wrong frequency for current devices.
>
> T-Mobile customers might end up the big winner here because of the
> roaming agreement that's part of the penalty for the deal failing.
>
> AT&T is gearing up for a fight, but it's very rare for a company to
> succeed against the Justice Department.
However, if the issue drags on long enough, the Justice Dept might
drop the objection once the Republicans take over the White House again.
- 09-01-2011, 12:45 PM #21CameoGuest
Re: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-Mobile USA by AT&T
"sms88" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Beyond blocking the acquisition of T-Mobile U.S.A., it may be time to
> break up AT&T again.
Tmonews.com has an interesting article on what might happen to
T-Mobile if the AT&T deal fizzles out? There are more possible
alternatives than combining T-Mo with another cell carrier:
http://www.tmonews.com/2011/09/what-...l-fizzles-out/
- 09-01-2011, 03:24 PM #22Steve SobolGuest
Re: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-Mobile USA by AT&T
In article <[email protected]>, sms88 says...
>
> On 9/1/2011 9:56 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
> > In article<[email protected]>,
> > SMS<[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> AT&T is gearing up for a fight, but it's very rare for a company to
> >> succeed against the Justice Department.
> >
> > That alone probably helps Sprint by dividing management's attention and
> > taking up resources.
>
> Beyond blocking the acquisition of T-Mobile U.S.A., it may be time to
> break up AT&T again.
Well, they HAVE gotten huge. Qwest went byebye too, folded into
CenturyTel, so we have three big telcos dividing up the landscape here
in the US. It's just wild how CenturyTel started out so small, and now
covers a ginormous portion of the western U.S.
I believe they acquired Embarq too, which used to be United Telephone
(Sprint's landline division) before Sprint spun it off. In fact I know
they did.
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
[email protected]
- 09-01-2011, 03:26 PM #23Steve SobolGuest
Re: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-Mobile USA by AT&T
In article <[email protected]>, Cameo says...
>
> "sms88" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Beyond blocking the acquisition of T-Mobile U.S.A., it may be time to
> > break up AT&T again.
>
> Tmonews.com has an interesting article on what might happen to
> T-Mobile if the AT&T deal fizzles out? There are more possible
> alternatives than combining T-Mo with another cell carrier:
>
> http://www.tmonews.com/2011/09/what-...l-fizzles-out/
>
Similar article, but with more detail, from cnet's Marguerite Reardon:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20...ns-at-t-faces-
big-4g-gap/
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
[email protected]
- 09-01-2011, 03:29 PM #24Steve SobolGuest
Re: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-Mobile USA by AT&T
In article <[email protected]>, Todd Allcock says...
> Let's face it, a bunch of separate wireless companies, while good for
> competition, is a redundant waste of resources. Say what you like about
> the old Ma Bell, but it ran like a clock. A better "punishment" for AT&T
> than denying the merger, might be approving it with caveats like
> mandating a high % of rural wireless broadband coverage (an Obama
> administration talking point), providing reduced cost wireless to schools
> and low-income users (a la the Comcast deal), etc., and forcing AT&T to
> provide competitive wholesale pricing of voice, messaging, and data to
> MVNOs, who could then fill the "competition void" left by the elimination
> of T-Mo, by reselling AT&T service at a discount.
And AT&T has been advertising that one of the key consumer benefits of
the merger would be improved coverage.
I'll tell you what, if they were forced to improve coverage in rural
areas, I might to change my tune, as much as I despise AT&T.
Statistically speaking, I live in the extreme northeast corner of the
Los Angeles metro area. In reality, I'm 75 miles northeast of downtown,
and if you go 10 miles east of here or *one* mile north, you're in the
middle of nowhere. We're rural. And as much as I love T-Mo, lack of 4G,
and in some cases, lack of *3G* in certain spots is a major annoyance to
me, now that I actually *use* T-Mo's mobile broadband services.
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
[email protected]
- 09-01-2011, 03:40 PM #25sms88Guest
Re: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-MobileUSA by AT&T
> I'll tell you what, if they were forced to improve coverage in rural
> areas, I might to change my tune, as much as I despise AT&T.
It sounds good, but there would be no enforcement. Remember when the
carriers were only allowed to turn off AMPS if doing so would result in
no loss of coverage. The reality is that it resulted in huge coverage
losses, but the FCC did nothing about it. The government has no
resources to enforce that kind of thing.
- 09-01-2011, 07:11 PM #26danny bursteinGuest
Re: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-Mobile USA by AT&T
In <[email protected]> sms88 <[email protected]> writes:
>> I'll tell you what, if they were forced to improve coverage in rural
>> areas, I might to change my tune, as much as I despise AT&T.
>It sounds good, but there would be no enforcement. Remember when the
>carriers were only allowed to turn off AMPS if doing so would result in
>no loss of coverage. The reality is that it resulted in huge coverage
>losses, but the FCC did nothing about it. The government has no
>resources to enforce that kind of thing.
s/resources/desire
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
[email protected]
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
- 09-01-2011, 07:35 PM #27The Ghost of General LeeGuest
Re: Re: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-Mobile USA by AT&T
On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 10:00:51 -0700, sms88 <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Beyond blocking the acquisition of T-Mobile U.S.A., it may be time to
>break up AT&T again.
>
><http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsCp-1hgfxI>
Perhaps this time they should use sledgehammers and wrecking balls.
- 09-02-2011, 07:45 AM #28SMSGuest
Re: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-MobileUSA by AT&T
On 9/1/2011 7:59 PM, Cameo wrote:
> But that would just drive up the cost for us urban/suburban users
> because rural coverage is not profitable in itself. The government would
> authorize yet another fee on our monthly bills to cover that.
I would be in favor of an RCF (Rural Cellularization Fee), not because I
live in a rural area but because I often drive through them. The
carriers can share the towers.
Practically speaking, if you want rural coverage, at least out west, you
use Sprint or Verizon, not because they themselves have a lot of rural
coverage but because you can roam on the smaller carriers like U.S.
Cellular and Golden State Cellular which are CDMA. This roaming on
smaller carriers doesn't work with MVNOs like Virgin, but on Pageplus it
works, for and extra per minute fee. There are still remote areas that
even the rural carriers don't cover which could be funded by the RCF.
- 09-02-2011, 02:16 PM #29Steve SobolGuest
Re: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-Mobile USA by AT&T
In article <[email protected]>, Kurt Ullman
says...
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 9/1/2011 7:59 PM, Cameo wrote:
> >
> > > But that would just drive up the cost for us urban/suburban users
> > > because rural coverage is not profitable in itself. The government would
> > > authorize yet another fee on our monthly bills to cover that.
> >
> > I would be in favor of an RCF (Rural Cellularization Fee), not because I
> > live in a rural area but because I often drive through them. The
> > carriers can share the towers.
> >
> I thought there already was one buried in the fees we pay.
I think you're referring to the Universal Service Fee for services like
9-1-1.
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
[email protected]
- 09-03-2011, 01:14 PM #30stevevGuest
Re: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-Mobile USA by AT&T
"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> At 01 Sep 2011 08:23:18 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>> T-Mobile customers might end up the big winner here because of the
>> roaming agreement that's part of the penalty for the deal failing.
>
> Perhaps, assuming DT either steps up to the plate and actually operates T-
> Mo like anything other than the red-headed stepchild they treat it as, or
> sells it to somebody else. There is limited spectrum in cellular, you'd
> think somebody new would want to break into wireless (Cable companies?)
> and have a turn-key operation available.
>
>
>> AT&T is gearing up for a fight, but it's very rare for a company to
>> succeed against the Justice Department.
>
>
> That might not be Justice's plan. This might be a scare tactic to
> extract concessions the Feds might not get otherwise.
>
> Let's face it, a bunch of separate wireless companies, while good for
> competition, is a redundant waste of resources. Say what you like about
> the old Ma Bell, but it ran like a clock. A better "punishment" for AT&T
> than denying the merger, might be approving it with caveats like
> mandating a high % of rural wireless broadband coverage (an Obama
> administration talking point), providing reduced cost wireless to schools
> and low-income users (a la the Comcast deal), etc., and forcing AT&T to
> provide competitive wholesale pricing of voice, messaging, and data to
> MVNOs, who could then fill the "competition void" left by the elimination
> of T-Mo, by reselling AT&T service at a discount.
>
>
Yes, like AT&T paying all or part of the "penalty" to the DOJ for use
(supposedly) to improve or enhance those items you have mentioned.
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to [email protected] ---
Similar Threads
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular
Is iPhone 15 waterproof?
in Apple (iPhone)