SBC to buy SprintPCS ?

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/031029/telecoms_mergers_3.html

says Bell South is waiting for ATT Wireless stock price to go down some more
before going ahead with a "merger"; but when that happens, SBC could want to
remain competitive and would go after SprintPCS.

---

› See More: SBC to buy SprintPCS ?

The FCC would have a field day with that one since Bell South owns a
good portion of Cingular.

A Cingular / AT&T merger was never out of the picture, though.

Not only that, Sprint Corp owns Sprint PCS, and just because stock
price is low that doesn't mean they can easily come in and just buy a
majority of the stock.

--
Posted at SprintUsers.com - Your place for everything Sprint PCS
Free wireless access @ www.SprintUsers.com/wap

> The FCC would have a field day with that one since > Bell South owns a good
portion of Cingular.

Presumably Bell South would split off their portion of Cingular to merge with
AT&T Wireless. SBC would then be left with a big piece missing in their
national coverage, hence an incentive to buy SprintPCS.

As SprintPCS is a money losing venture, Sprint might be happy to sell it off
under the right circumstances.

Six or seven National Cellular companies is more than the market can support,
so a shakeout is inevitable.

Alternatively Sprint could buy up every smaller carrier (its affiliates and
Alltel, etc) and try to make SprintPCS a survivor, but has shown no indication
of travelling that path.

CAT0NHAT <[email protected]> wrote:

> Alternatively Sprint could buy up every smaller carrier (its affiliates and
> Alltel, etc)

Uh, no, they couldn't.

Anti-trust concerns...


--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
Steve Sobol, Proprietor
888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]

>> Alternatively Sprint could buy up
>> every smaller carrier (its affiliates and
>> Alltel, etc)

[email protected] answered:

> Uh, no, they couldn't.

> Anti-trust concerns...

I don't think you know 1/10 as much about the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act as you
think you do.

Oh, no. *Another* thread where we try to supply Phil with facts?
One really needs to be an optimist to think that'll work.
---JRC---

"Steven J Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message =
news[email protected]...
> CAT0NHAT <[email protected]> wrote:
> =20
> > Alternatively Sprint could buy up every smaller carrier (its =
affiliates and
> > Alltel, etc)
>=20
> Uh, no, they couldn't.
>=20
> Anti-trust concerns...
>=20

<A HREF="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</A>
another Sprint apologist.

You don't like the reporting of Reuters about the sorry state of SprintPCS?

Steven J Sobol wrote:

> CAT0NHAT <[email protected]> wrote:
> Uh, no, they couldn't.
>
> Anti-trust concerns...

That only kicks in when there would be a clear monoply.
Since there would still be other providers, a monoply
still wouldn't exist if only two of the big five merged,
e.g. Sprint, Nextel, AT&T, Cingular, and VoiceStream,
and Verizon.

If ANY one ever merged, it would most likely be with
another provider with similar technology, i.e
Sprint and Verizon, or AT&T with Cingular or VoiceStream.

JRW <no_addy@no_.com> wrote:
> Steven J Sobol wrote:
>
>> CAT0NHAT <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Uh, no, they couldn't.
>>
>> Anti-trust concerns...
>
> That only kicks in when there would be a clear monoply.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but DoJ has stepped in and said "we don't think so"
in other situations where a monopoly wouldn't be created, but where competition
would be significantly reduced.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
Steve Sobol, Proprietor
888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]

[email protected] said:

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but DoJ has stepped in
> and said "we don't think so"
> in other situations where a monopoly wouldn't be
> created, but where competition
> would be significantly reduced.

Getting closer. Here is how the Hart-Scott-Rodino act works.

To put it briefly, it works like this:

The FTC's antitrust arm, the Bureau of Competition, seeks to prevent business
practices that restrain competition. As a result, purchasers benefit from lower
prices and greater availability of products and services.

Thus any proposed merger may or may not be blocked by the FTC depending on how
it views its effect on competition. For instance in the spring of 2000 it
blocked a proposed Worlcom merger with Sprint (not SprintPCS). Earlier it had
blocked a Staples/Office-Depot merger. It did not block an SBC-Ameritech or an
SBC-PacBell merger, but did block an AT&T (not AT&T wireless) - SBC merger.
When the 2 merger partners are viable going concerns, mergers are viewed
differently than if the merger helps one survive where it might not otherwise.
Consumers benefit if SprintPCS doesn't go out of business, and thus a
SprintPCS/ SBC half of Cingular merger, following a Bell South-AT&T Wireless
merger could be so presented to the FTC.

CAT0NHAT wrote:

>>> Alternatively Sprint could buy up
>>> every smaller carrier (its affiliates and
>>> Alltel, etc)
>
> [email protected] answered:
>
>> Uh, no, they couldn't.
>
>> Anti-trust concerns...
>
> I don't think you know 1/10 as much about the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act as you
> think you do.

Wow- was today 'Know Your Government Day' on Sesame Street?

Wouldn't his knowing 1/10 equate to knowing three times as much as you?

"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Wouldn't his knowing 1/10 equate to knowing three times as much as you?

Actually, I think you caused a divide by zero error ... three is far to
small of a number.

Tom Veldhouse

I hope Tom and Scott are having fun congratulating each other on being
SprintPCS apologists, while the rest of the world tells of what losers
SprintPCS will be from WLNP.

http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20031024S0009

I just want to point out that the guys facts are a bit off. No big carrier
has 25-35% churn, it should be 2.5-3.5%. If all the carriers had 25% churn
they'd all be out of business.
"CAT0NHAT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I hope Tom and Scott are having fun congratulating each other on being
> SprintPCS apologists, while the rest of the world tells of what losers
> SprintPCS will be from WLNP.
>
> http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20031024S0009

> I just want to point out that the guys facts are a
> bit off. No big carrier
> has 25-35% churn, it should be 2.5-3.5%. If all
> the carriers had 25% churn
> they'd all be out of business.

He may have not made it clear. The 2.5% to 3.5% are monthly churn. The 25%+ is
an annual churn, and yes companies (like Sprint) with that kind of churn are
in trouble, losing money, and predicted to see their churn increase by 50%, as
thats what happened in England when portability came in.