reply to discussion
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30
  1. #1
    SMS
    Guest
    <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-31/u-s-files-antitrust-complaint-to-block-proposed-at-t-t-mobile-merger.html>



    See More: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-Mobile USAby AT&T




  2. #2
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-MobileUSA by AT&T

    On 8/31/2011 9:13 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

    > Meanwhile, Sprint has to be doing cartwheels. Not only do they have
    > a major competitor stopped, Deutsche Telekom probably still wants to get
    > rid of T-M. Sprint would be able to purchase TM and get all that new
    > spectrum, some extra cash, and the roaming agreement. And probably get
    > it for a (relatively) cheaper price since they are probably the only one
    > who could actually afford to buy it and likely to get through antitrust.


    Would Sprint abandon Wi-Max in favor of LTE? T-Mobile has no plans at
    all for 4G in the U.S., and Sprint has no LTE roadmap. Sprint would not
    get that $6 billion either, that goes to T-Mobile's parent company
    Deutsche Telekom.

    AT&T is not going to go quietly and pay that $6 billion, they've already
    indicated that they will fight. This could take years to work out. It
    puts AT&T in an impossible situation. They can fight the justice
    department and hope for a Republican president that has no antitrust
    concerns, but in the meantime they have to be acquiring spectrum and
    building out their network to solve their capacity crunch so they can
    compete with Verizon. Once they build out their network and acquire more
    spectrum they have less need for T-Mobile.

    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 and T-Mobile's coverage issues, while they fight for the
    acquisition to go through or wait for political changes. By having those
    roaming agreements in place it would also help prevent Sprint from
    getting T-Mobile because they would be hard-pressed to honor those
    roaming agreements.

    While some people are saying that Sprint should buy T-Mobile that won't
    really solve the coverage problems of either of those carriers. Sprint
    relies heavily on roaming agreements with Verizon and with smaller CDMA
    carriers, agreements that won't help T-Mobile's GSM customers. Sprint
    probably doesn't want to give every T-Mobile customer a comparable new
    CDMA phone.

    Sprint may be happy today, but Verizon is even happier. Verizon has not
    been vocal in public about the acquisition, but they must have not been
    in favor of it.



  3. #3
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-MobileUSA by AT&T

    On 8/31/2011 9:13 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

    > Meanwhile, Sprint has to be doing cartwheels.


    Sprint has been the only major carrier publicly pointing out the
    anti-competitive nature of this deal. No doubt any time AT&T did
    something anti-consumer Sprint was advising the Justice Department of
    it. When AT&T dropped the $5/month texting plan, then announced the
    dropping of the $10 and $15 texting plans, Sprint was probably thrilled,
    and rushed out letters pointing out what AT&T was doing even before the
    acquisition.

    AT&T was appearing way too desperate for this deal. They lined up all
    sorts of strange proponents for the deal from organizations, many of
    which they donate money to, from obscure civil rights groups to the
    NAACP and the Sierra Club. The statements from these groups were so
    bizarre that they were amusing and the fact that AT&T solicited this
    support showed that they knew that their actual case for the acquisition
    was weak.

    But who knows, it may end up going through, with some modifications. The
    Cingular acquisition of AT&T Wireless was bigger, and it went through,
    but that did not reduce the number of national carriers by as big a
    percentage.



  4. #4
    Paul Miner
    Guest

    Re: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-Mobile USA by AT&T

    On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 10:14:20 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >On 8/31/2011 9:13 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
    >
    >> Meanwhile, Sprint has to be doing cartwheels. Not only do they have
    >> a major competitor stopped, Deutsche Telekom probably still wants to get
    >> rid of T-M. Sprint would be able to purchase TM and get all that new
    >> spectrum, some extra cash, and the roaming agreement. And probably get
    >> it for a (relatively) cheaper price since they are probably the only one
    >> who could actually afford to buy it and likely to get through antitrust.

    >
    >Would Sprint abandon Wi-Max in favor of LTE?


    That appears to be a distinct possibility.


    <http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/technologybrierdudleysblog/2016066184_sprint_president_on_att_t-mobi.html>

    Q: Five years from now, what's it going to look like? Will 3G be gone,
    and will there be three big players in the industry?

    A: I don't think 3G will be gone. It's unclear to me what the
    landscape in five years will look like if this [merger] goes through.
    I do think if this doesn't go through, consolidation and strengthening
    a third player is a fairly good option.

    Q: What about the networks in five years? Will LTE be dominant and
    WiMax just supplementing it?

    A: I think LTE is showing itself globally to be pretty much the
    dominant standard so I think that's probably a yes.

    WiMax is still a great product and working very well for us. We're not
    at this point in time announcing anything other than what we're doing.

    But our network vision build-out is one that allows us to use the
    different types of spectrums, different technologies and will
    determine the right time to use the right technology.

    --
    Paul Miner



  5. #5
    Paul Miner
    Guest

    Re: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-Mobile USA by AT&T

    On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 13:02:56 -0500, Paul Miner
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 10:14:20 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On 8/31/2011 9:13 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
    >>
    >>> Meanwhile, Sprint has to be doing cartwheels. Not only do they have
    >>> a major competitor stopped, Deutsche Telekom probably still wants to get
    >>> rid of T-M. Sprint would be able to purchase TM and get all that new
    >>> spectrum, some extra cash, and the roaming agreement. And probably get
    >>> it for a (relatively) cheaper price since they are probably the only one
    >>> who could actually afford to buy it and likely to get through antitrust.

    >>
    >>Would Sprint abandon Wi-Max in favor of LTE?

    >
    >That appears to be a distinct possibility.
    >
    >
    ><http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/technologybrierdudleysblog/2016066184_sprint_president_on_att_t-mobi.html>


    I suppose I should have picked some better URLs:

    <http://www.bgr.com/2011/07/28/sprint-announces-deal-to-adopt-4g-lte/>
    <http://www.pcworld.com/article/236863/sprints_move_to_lte_not_great_news_for_consumers.html>
    <http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2389312,00.asp>
    <http://www.dailytech.com/Sprint+Enters+Agreement+to+Deploy+LTE+Services+WiMAX+Left+in+Limbo/article22288.htm>
    <http://www.androidcentral.com/sprint-and-lightsquared-deploy-lte-network>
    <http://www.infoworld.com/d/the-industry-standard/sprint-lightsquared-see-green-in-lte-168422>
    <http://www.goingwimax.com/sprints-future-this-is-4g-13212/>

    and so on.

    --
    Paul Miner



  6. #6
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-MobileUSA by AT&T

    On 8/31/2011 11:00 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

    > If it was ever going to go through, it would have under the Dems. ATT
    > had promised to bring all of T-M's eligible (currently non-union)
    > employees into the appropriate union, putting the Administration's first
    > or second biggest contributors into the mix on their side. They also
    > promised to increase coverage in rural area, a long time Obama project.
    > I thought, at the time, it was a brilliant maneuver. Guess I was wrong.
    > Given what you just brought up, how can they afford to fight it
    > for too long?


    What I read was that the only reason Obama would be in favor of it was
    because he wanted to appear pro-business prior to the 2012 presidential
    election. The union thing is something AT&T harped on, but there won't
    be many new union members once AT&T gets through with layoffs. Rural
    coverage will increase with or without T-Mobile if AT&T wants to compete
    with Verizon and the CDMA carriers. T-Mobile certainly brings nothing to
    the table in terms of rural coverage, all they bring is urban spectrum,
    and AT&T has admitted as much.

    They are paying $39 billion for T-Mobile, claiming that it will help
    expand LTE coverage from 80% to 97%. In fact, their own numbers show
    that expanding LTE coverage from 80% to 97% would cost them $3.8
    billion, and T-Mobile doesn't have any spectrum at all in most of those
    areas so they'd be spending most of the $3.8 billion anyway. They
    intentionally held back the LTE expansion to use the T-Mobile
    acquisition as a bargaining chip, but everyone knows that they have no
    choice but to expand to be competitive with Verizon.

    Most of the support they garnered from non-profit organizations was
    based on this expansion of coverage of LTE that they falsely claimed
    could only take place if they got T-Mobile. AT&T stated that the 80% to
    97% expansion would be achieved only if they bought T-Mobile (for $39
    billion) because it would achieve economies of scale that would lower
    the $3.8 billion cost of the LTE expansion.

    The Justice Department no doubt was well aware of AT&T's maneuvers and
    false statements on this deal. The reality is that AT&T desperately
    wants to be the only national GSM carriers because the lack of
    competition will enable them to increase prices. The Justice Department
    lawyers aren't idiots, but the letter from Richard Rosen with it's
    statements about farmers and firefighters, doctors and students, etc.
    talks down to them.





  7. #7
    danny burstein
    Guest

    Re: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-Mobile USA by AT&T

    In <[email protected]> SMS <[email protected]> writes:

    >Most of the support they garnered from non-profit organizations was
    >based on this expansion of coverage of LTE that they falsely claimed
    >could only take place if they got T-Mobile.


    New here, Steve? There's a bunch of Benjaim Franklins over
    in the hallway who'd like to explain lobbying to you...



    --
    _____________________________________________________
    Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
    [email protected]
    [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]



  8. #8
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-MobileUSA by AT&T

    On 8/31/2011 11:45 AM, Todd Allcock wrote:

    > The merger makes no sense on any level other than the killing off of a
    > competitor and a short term alleviation of a spectrum crunch in key
    > markets for AT&T. AT&T already has plenty of unused spectrum at 700MHz
    > but buying T-Mo's existing network is quicker and easier than actually
    > building infrastructure.


    Not to mention all those handsets out there that don't have 700 MHz.



  9. #9
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-MobileUSA by AT&T

    On 8/31/2011 12:03 PM, danny burstein wrote:
    > In<[email protected]> SMS<[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >> Most of the support they garnered from non-profit organizations was
    >> based on this expansion of coverage of LTE that they falsely claimed
    >> could only take place if they got T-Mobile.

    >
    > New here, Steve? There's a bunch of Benjaim Franklins over
    > in the hallway who'd like to explain lobbying to you...


    Yeah, yeah, I should have said "Most of the support they garnered from
    non-profit organizations that they donate money to used the AT&T false
    claim of expansion of coverage of LTE to justify their support of the
    acquisition, even though they probably knew that what AT&T was saying
    was not accurate."



  10. #10
    Steve Sobol
    Guest

    Re: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-Mobile USA by AT&T

    In article <[email protected]>, Kurt Ullman
    says...


    > Meanwhile, Sprint has to be doing cartwheels. Not only do they have
    > a major competitor stopped, Deutsche Telekom probably still wants to get
    > rid of T-M. Sprint would be able to purchase TM and get all that new
    > spectrum, some extra cash, and the roaming agreement. And probably get
    > it for a (relatively) cheaper price since they are probably the only one
    > who could actually afford to buy it and likely to get through antitrust.


    I doubt it would make it through antitrust scrutiny.


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



  11. #11
    Steve Sobol
    Guest

    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.



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



  12. #12
    Richard B. Gilbert
    Guest

    Re: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-MobileUSA by AT&T

    On 8/31/2011 5:51 PM, Steve Sobol wrote:
    > 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.
    >
    >
    >

    Do they have the hardware installed to MAKE USE of that spectrum? How
    much will it cost them to install the necessary hardware? How much time
    will it take to bring the new hardware online? Do there existing
    phones support this new spectrum?

    How much revenue are they losing because equipment can't be or hasn't
    been installed?

    Why is this being posted to alt.cellular.verizon?? It seems to be off
    topic!!



  13. #13
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-MobileUSA by AT&T

    On 8/31/2011 2:49 PM, Steve Sobol wrote:
    > In article<[email protected]>, Kurt Ullman
    > says...
    >
    >
    >> Meanwhile, Sprint has to be doing cartwheels. Not only do they have
    >> a major competitor stopped, Deutsche Telekom probably still wants to get
    >> rid of T-M. Sprint would be able to purchase TM and get all that new
    >> spectrum, some extra cash, and the roaming agreement. And probably get
    >> it for a (relatively) cheaper price since they are probably the only one
    >> who could actually afford to buy it and likely to get through antitrust.

    >
    > I doubt it would make it through antitrust scrutiny.


    It might, because it would actually increase competition to have three
    viable carriers rather than two viable carriers and two struggling
    carriers. That assumes that the combination of T-Mobile and Sprint would
    create a third viable carrier, which given the commonality of their lack
    of rural coverage may be a bad assumption.




  14. #14
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-MobileUSA by AT&T

    On 8/31/2011 2:51 PM, Steve Sobol wrote:
    > 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.



  15. #15
    Steve Sobol
    Guest

    Re: U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-Mobile USA by AT&T

    In article <[email protected]>, SMS says...
    >
    > On 8/31/2011 2:49 PM, Steve Sobol wrote:
    > > In article<[email protected]>, Kurt Ullman
    > > says...
    > >
    > >
    > >> Meanwhile, Sprint has to be doing cartwheels. Not only do they have
    > >> a major competitor stopped, Deutsche Telekom probably still wants to get
    > >> rid of T-M. Sprint would be able to purchase TM and get all that new
    > >> spectrum, some extra cash, and the roaming agreement. And probably get
    > >> it for a (relatively) cheaper price since they are probably the only one
    > >> who could actually afford to buy it and likely to get through antitrust.

    > >
    > > I doubt it would make it through antitrust scrutiny.

    >
    > It might, because it would actually increase competition


    You sound like an AT&T executive.

    Of course it wouldn't increase competition. You'd have the same
    customers and the same wireless licenses being shared between fewer
    companies.

    The fact that of the Big Four, the bottom two aren't doing so great...
    it's true, but it is also irrelevant.



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



  • Similar Threads







  • Quick Reply Quick Reply

    If you are already a member, please login above.