reply to discussion
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    John Navas
    Guest




  2. #2
    News
    Guest

    Re: NEWS: Bursor & Fisher Law Firm Announces more than 1,000 AT&TCustomers to File Arbitration Cases Challenging AT&T's Takeover of T-Mobile;AT&T Acknowledges these Cases Place the $39 Billion Merger "In Jeopardy"

    On 8/10/2011 10:32 AM, John Navas wrote:
    > <http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=272330&type=newswires>



    LOL. Prove your "damages".



  3. #3
    tlvp
    Guest

    Re: NEWS: Bursor & Fisher Law Firm Announces more than 1,000 AT&TCustomers to File Arbitration Cases Challenging AT&T's Takeover of T-Mobile;AT&T Acknowledges these Cases Place the $39 Billion Merger "In Jeopardy"

    On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:24:05 -0400, News <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On 8/10/2011 10:32 AM, John Navas wrote:
    >> <http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=272330&type=newswires>

    >
    >
    > LOL. Prove your "damages".


    I'm a bit surprised: I'd have thought attws customers would *benefit* from
    the new availability of (to-be-former) T-Mobile network to register on, and
    that it was the T-Mobile customers who should object to getting forced onto
    the oversubscribed attws network.

    But who can know what lurks in the heart or the mind of the devious lawyer?
    -- Not even "The Phantom" knows ... :-) .

    Cheers, -- tlvp
    --
    Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP



  4. #4
    Cameo
    Guest

    Re: NEWS: Bursor & Fisher Law Firm Announces more than 1,000 AT&T Customers to File Arbitration Cases Challenging AT&T's Takeover of T-Mobile; AT&T Acknowledges these Cases Place the $39 Billion Merger "In Jeopardy"


    "News" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On 8/10/2011 10:32 AM, John Navas wrote:
    >> <http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=272330&type=newswires>

    >
    >
    > LOL. Prove your "damages".


    AT&T Acknowledges these Cases Place the $39 Billion Merger "In
    Jeopardy," therefore we, T-Mo customers, welcome the lawsuit.






  5. #5
    Steve Sobol
    Guest

    Re: NEWS: Bursor & Fisher Law Firm Announces more than 1,000 AT&T Customers to File Arbitration Cases Challenging AT&T's Takeover of T-Mobile; AT&T Acknowledges these Cases Place the $39 Billion Merger "In Jeopardy"

    In article <[email protected]>, tlvp says...
    >
    > On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:24:05 -0400, News <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > On 8/10/2011 10:32 AM, John Navas wrote:
    > >> <http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=272330&type=newswires>

    > >
    > >
    > > LOL. Prove your "damages".

    >
    > I'm a bit surprised: I'd have thought attws customers would *benefit* from
    > the new availability of (to-be-former) T-Mobile network to register on, and
    > that it was the T-Mobile customers who should object to getting forced onto
    > the oversubscribed attws network.
    >
    > But who can know what lurks in the heart or the mind of the devious lawyer?
    > -- Not even "The Phantom" knows ... :-) .


    I'm opposed, as a T-Mobile customer, but ATT customers should be opposed
    too. A significant decrease in competition will make it easier for ATT
    to screw EVERYONE - legacy ATT customers and legacy T-Mobile customers
    alike.

    I haven't been an ATT customer since leaving Ohio in 2003. They tried to
    steal from me the year before I moved to California. They failed, but
    only because I got the Ohio PUC on their slimy asses. As opposed to
    Verizon, which is primarily just stupid, ATT is pure evil. (Former ATT
    customer, current Verizon customer; here in Apple Valley, CA, they are
    the local phone company.)


    --
    Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
    [email protected]



  6. #6
    tlvp
    Guest

    Re: NEWS: Bursor & Fisher Law Firm Announces more than 1,000 AT&TCustomers to File Arbitration Cases Challenging AT&T's Takeover of T-Mobile;AT&T Acknowledges these Cases Place the $39 Billion Merger "In Jeopardy"

    On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:37:39 -0400, Steve Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>, tlvp says...
    >>
    >> On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:24:05 -0400, News <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> > On 8/10/2011 10:32 AM, John Navas wrote:
    >> >> <http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=272330&type=newswires>
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > LOL. Prove your "damages".

    >>
    >> I'm a bit surprised: I'd have thought attws customers would *benefit* from
    >> the new availability of (to-be-former) T-Mobile network to register on, and
    >> that it was the T-Mobile customers who should object to getting forced onto
    >> the oversubscribed attws network.
    >>
    >> But who can know what lurks in the heart or the mind of the devious lawyer?
    >> -- Not even "The Phantom" knows ... :-) .

    >
    > I'm opposed, as a T-Mobile customer, but ATT customers should be opposed
    > too. A significant decrease in competition will make it easier for ATT
    > to screw EVERYONE - legacy ATT customers and legacy T-Mobile customers
    > alike.


    Once Sprint, Cricket, Pocket, VirginMobile, and AllTel go into some other
    carriers' pockets, you're right: an at&t/VZW duopoly bodes ill for all :-{ .

    > I haven't been an ATT customer since leaving Ohio in 2003. They tried to
    > steal from me the year before I moved to California. They failed, but
    > only because I got the Ohio PUC on their slimy asses. As opposed to
    > Verizon, which is primarily just stupid, ATT is pure evil. (Former ATT
    > customer, current Verizon customer; here in Apple Valley, CA, they are
    > the local phone company.)


    Well, SJS, heads up, and caveat emptor in good health. Cheers, -- tlvp
    --
    Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP



  7. #7
    Steve Sobol
    Guest

    Re: NEWS: Bursor & Fisher Law Firm Announces more than 1,000 AT&T Customers to File Arbitration Cases Challenging AT&T's Takeover of T-Mobile; AT&T Acknowledges these Cases Place the $39 Billion Merger "In Jeopardy"

    In article <[email protected]>, tlvp says...


    >
    > Once Sprint, Cricket, Pocket, VirginMobile, and AllTel go into some other
    > carriers' pockets, you're right: an at&t/VZW duopoly bodes ill for all :-{ .


    As far as I knew, Alltel was dead. The pieces that didn't go to VZ went
    to AT&T.

    I see that alltel.com is still online, but I put in 44122 -- the zip
    code in Greater Cleveland where I grew up; Cleveland became Alltel's
    largest market after the merger that created VZW -- and they are no
    longer providing service there.

    Apparently, they have fewer than a million customers now:

    "On April 26, 2010, Atlantic Tele-Network acquired the remaining 26
    divested Alltel markets, including licenses, network assets and 800,000
    subscribers. [5] These remaining markets continue to be operated by
    Allied Wireless, a subsidiary of ATN, under the Alltel name. [6]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alltel

    So, Alltel doesn't count as they no longer exist in most markets and
    wouldn't be a viable nationwide competitor.

    The flat-rate prepaid carriers like Cricket, MetroPCS, and others depend
    on the big guys for nationwide roaming, so there's a big issue there.

    Sprint/Virgin would be the only real competition for VZW and a combined
    AT&T/T-Mo, and I'm not sure how well they're doing.


    > Well, SJS, heads up, and caveat emptor in good health. Cheers, -- tlvp


    Yeah, yeah, I know, but thanks anyhow



    --
    Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
    [email protected]



  8. #8
    News
    Guest

    Re: NEWS: Bursor & Fisher Law Firm Announces more than 1,000 AT&TCustomers to File Arbitration Cases Challenging AT&T's Takeover of T-Mobile;AT&T Acknowledges these Cases Place the $39 Billion Merger "In Jeopardy"

    On 8/10/2011 10:41 PM, tlvp wrote:
    > On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:37:39 -0400, Steve Sobol <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> In article <[email protected]>, tlvp says...
    >>>
    >>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:24:05 -0400, News <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> > On 8/10/2011 10:32 AM, John Navas wrote:
    >>> >> <http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=272330&type=newswires>
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>> > LOL. Prove your "damages".
    >>>
    >>> I'm a bit surprised: I'd have thought attws customers would *benefit*
    >>> from
    >>> the new availability of (to-be-former) T-Mobile network to register
    >>> on, and
    >>> that it was the T-Mobile customers who should object to getting
    >>> forced onto
    >>> the oversubscribed attws network.
    >>>
    >>> But who can know what lurks in the heart or the mind of the devious
    >>> lawyer?
    >>> -- Not even "The Phantom" knows ... :-) .

    >>
    >> I'm opposed, as a T-Mobile customer, but ATT customers should be opposed
    >> too. A significant decrease in competition will make it easier for ATT
    >> to screw EVERYONE - legacy ATT customers and legacy T-Mobile customers
    >> alike.

    >
    > Once Sprint, Cricket, Pocket, VirginMobile, and AllTel go into some other
    > carriers' pockets, you're right: an at&t/VZW duopoly bodes ill for all
    > :-{ .
    >
    >> I haven't been an ATT customer since leaving Ohio in 2003. They tried to
    >> steal from me the year before I moved to California. They failed, but
    >> only because I got the Ohio PUC on their slimy asses. As opposed to
    >> Verizon, which is primarily just stupid, ATT is pure evil. (Former ATT
    >> customer, current Verizon customer; here in Apple Valley, CA, they are
    >> the local phone company.)

    >
    > Well, SJS, heads up, and caveat emptor in good health. Cheers, -- tlvp



    Those are proper antitrust arguments, not "damages".






Quick Reply Quick Reply

If you are already a member, please login above.