Post a reply to the thread: 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"
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces)
You may choose an icon for your message from this list
Will turn www.example.com into [URL]http://www.example.com[/URL].
If selected, :) will not be replaced with
You may rate this thread from 1-star (Terrible) to 5-stars (Excellent) if you wish to do so.
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".
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]
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
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]
"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.
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
On 8/10/2011 10:32 AM, John Navas wrote: > <http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=272330&type=newswires> LOL. Prove your "damages".
<http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=272330&type=newswires>
Forum Rules
When seeking the best appliance...
¡Saludos! Me gustaría...
¡Hola! Quiero compartir con...
Permítame recomendarle un gran...
Buenas tardes Tengo una gran...
Creditare Eficientă
in Chit Chat