U.S. Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block Acquisition of T-Mobile USA by AT&T
SMS
Kurt Ullman
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-31/u-s-files-antitrust-complaint-to-blo
> ck-proposed-at-t-t-mobile-merger.html>
I was shocked. I figured that T's promise to bring of T-M's employees
into the union would be enough to get it through on its own. If it
doesn't go through, it would seem likely to put a really deep dent in
ATT. The break-up fee was VERY high at $6 billion which would include $3
billion of cash, and about $2 billion worth of spectrum and a roaming
agreement valued at $1 billion.
While the cash agreement is already unusually high at 7.7 percent of
the total deal price, the addition of assets and services of a similar
value would mean that the companies are breaking global records with a
15.4 percent break-up fee, according to Thomson Reuters Data.
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.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
SMS
> 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.
SMS
> 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.
Kurt Ullman
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
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?
Paul Miner
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.
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
Kurt Ullman
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> 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 the very least, they have to be happy that ATT will be
preoccupied for the immediate future. I would think the fact that so
much money and infrastructure is now in doubt (just in the break up
fee), that that has to have some impact on borrowing, etc. Not to
mention management being sidetracked.
Paul Miner
<pmi...@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 10:14:20 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
>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
Todd Allcock
> 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.
Not only that, but Cingular and old AT&T has far less overlap- there were
many markets where only one or the other operated, but not both, which
didn't reduce the number of competitors in those markets at all. T-Mo's
service area is practically a subset of AT&Ts, so the net effect on
competition is the loss of a competitor in every T-Mo market.
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.
SMS
> 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.
danny burstein
>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
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
SMS
> 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.
Todd Allcock
When AT&T first started building their 3G network there ease no such
thing as a GSM hander with 800 or 1900 MHz 3G.
T-Mo rolled out a 3G network at the then never-before utilized (for
cellular) 1700MHz band and offered several handsets to support it in 18
months, with less resources than AT&T has. AT&T could colocate 700MHz on
their network and bully handset OEMs to support it in far less time and
for far less cost than this merger will require. Hell, convince Apple to
put 700 in the next iPhone, cobble together a 700 MHz "test" buildout in
NY and SF, and their biggest network congestion problems would be gone by
Christmas! ;)
SMS
> In<4e5e8486$0$2185$742e...@news.sonic.net> SMS<scharf...@geemail.com> 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."
Steve Sobol
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
sjs...@JustThe.net
Steve Sobol
> 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.
Richard B. Gilbert
> In article<4e5e6bf6$0$2175$742e...@news.sonic.net>, 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.
>
>
>
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!!
SMS
> In article<84Sdna4A1ZArwMPT...@earthlink.com>, 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.
SMS
> In article<4e5e6bf6$0$2175$742e...@news.sonic.net>, 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.
Todd Allcock
> In article <84Sdna4A1ZArwMPT...@earthlink.com>, 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.
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.
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.
Steve Sobol
>
> On 8/31/2011 2:49 PM, Steve Sobol wrote:
> > In article<84Sdna4A1ZArwMPT...@earthlink.com>, 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
> 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
> >> 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.
Todd Allcock
> In article <j3mf4d$vd2$1...@dont-email.me>, 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.
I agree. That, however, is a separate issue than "would it pass anti-
trust scrutiny?"
A dumb idea, but it'd sail right through the Feds (IMO).
Todd Allcock
> In article <4e5ebfc0$0$2203$742e...@news.sonic.net>, 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.
>
And realistically, like T-Mo with 1700MHz 3G, they wouldn't have to
"force" anyone. AT&T (at least pre-merger) planned to use 700 for LTE
(4G). The smartphone users (and root of AT&T's congestion problems)
would voluntarily upgrade to faster 4G handsets at their next renewal.
Kurt Ullman
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
According to stories published since the DOJ announcement, T-Mobile has
been losing subscribers at an accelerating pace. Even with the cash
infusion, DT might not want to mess with T-M. Also, there is little or
no overlap.
Kurt Ullman
Steve Sobol <sjs...@JustThe.net> 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.
SMS
> 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.
Kurt Ullman
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> 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.
sms88
> In article<4e5fa370$0$2126$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS<scharf...@geemail.com> 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.
Cameo
> 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.
Cameo
> 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-happens-to-t-mobile-if-the-att-deal-fizzles-out/
Todd Allcock
> 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.
Currently MVNOs, like Page Plus, Walmart's Family Mobile, etc., are
hamstrung by the unavailability of competitive wholesale data pricing,
allowing the underlying infrastructure operators to "own" the smartphone
and enterprise user business, leaving the MVNOs with the leftover low
revenue users. Forcing AT&T to offer services at cost-plus-x our retail-
minus-x as a condition of the merger, would open up a whole new round of
competitive, national, MVNOs.
If AT&T didn't like the terms, they could drop the merger, pay T-Mo, and
actually build their network capacity the hard way.
Steve Sobol
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
Similar article, but with more detail, from cnet's Marguerite Reardon:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20100203-266/t-mobile-sans-at-t-faces-
big-4g-gap/
Steve Sobol
> 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.
sms88
> 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.
danny burstein
s/resources/desire
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
The Ghost of General Lee
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.
Cameo
> That might not be Justice's plan. This might be a scare tactic to
> extract concessions the Feds might not get otherwise.
Maybe a substantial political contribution to Obama's reelection
campaign could also change JD's mind.
> 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.,
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.
SMS
> 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.
Kurt Ullman
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> 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.
Todd Allcock
Thinking about it, wouldn't a cross-roaming agreement with satellite
phone companies make more sense? Sat phones are much smaller these days,
so you could build a hybrid cell/sat phone for the relatively small
number of people who require extensive rural coverage, and hopefully use
economies of scale to reduce pricing eventually.
Something like the AT&T/Terrestar solution, which uses a single
geosynchronous satellite to cover North America. It uses an $800 dual
mode (GSM/Sat) smartphone and customers pay a $25 sat access fee plus pet
minute charges for sat access, on top of their usual AT&T service fees.
It even works up to 200 miles offshore. Maybe this was John's "Extended
GSM"! ;)
Steve Sobol
says...
>
> In article <4e60ddf1$0$1694$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 9/1/2011 7:59 PM, Cameo wrote:
> >
> > > But that would just drive up the cost for us urban/suburban users
> > > because rural coverage is not profitable in itself. The government would
> > > authorize yet another fee on our monthly bills to cover that.
> >
> > I would be in favor of an RCF (Rural Cellularization Fee), not because I
> > live in a rural area but because I often drive through them. The
> > carriers can share the towers.
> >
> I thought there already was one buried in the fees we pay.
I think you're referring to the Universal Service Fee for services like
9-1-1.
Kurt Ullman
Steve Sobol <sjs...@JustThe.net> wrote:
>
>
> I think you're referring to the Universal Service Fee for services like
> 9-1-1.
Maybe, but I still vaguely remember something about the cell companies
getting upset because they did not think they should pay the equivalent
of the landline rural coverage tax. As I mentioned, the recollection is
vague
stevev
"Todd Allcock" <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
news:j3onp6$d3j$1...@dont-email.me...
> 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 ne...@netfront.net ---