Government Files to Block AT&T's T-Mobile Acquisition

Status
Not open for further replies.

ballinjoey2332

Distinguished
Jul 25, 2010
11
0
18,560
0
[citation][nom]Azn Cracker[/nom]I have T-Mobile right now... Please don't take it away![/citation]

There still would be T-Mobile but it would be ran by AT&T. I could be wrong but you wouldnt have to pay for a whole new 2 year with AT&T or anything.

I have AT&T and i really was hoping it went through but with this news i really dont know anymore.
 

Hellbound

Distinguished
Jul 7, 2004
184
0
18,630
0
With more competitors comes more competition, normally, meaning lower prices. My instinct tells me ATT acquiring Tmobile wont be a good thing..
 

scook9

Distinguished
Oct 16, 2008
245
0
18,830
0
[citation][nom]soldier37[/nom]Purely a political move by the Obama regime. T Mobile is a third place network. Sprint will be next to get eaten up. This merger will happen one way or another. Its inevitable. Oh and Iphone 5 on AT&T ftw. Unlimited data plan - check..... Verizon - capped.[/citation]
Cute comment but.....

AT&T does not offer unlimited data any more, just like Verizon does not. Both are capped unless you are grandfathered in. The "obama regime" has nothing to do with it. Can you please explain how having less companies competing for business is better for the consumer?

I have heard of android and apple fanboys....but this is my first AT&T fanboy.....
 

cirdecus

Distinguished
Feb 14, 2008
100
0
18,640
2
I don't see a duopoly as a reason for DOJ to step in. It's not like Verizon wouldn't compete with the unified ATT and T-Mobile company.

It shouldn't be ATT's fault that Verizon exists. This argument should be whether or not Verizon can stay competitive against ATT instead of whether other companies can stay competitive with the TWO of them.

If they're really aiming to make sure 2 companies cannot be dominate in a market, how come they haven't stepped in on:

UFC (purchased Strikeforce), monopoly in the MMA sport
Nvidia and ATI (only 2 mainstream graphics entities)
Intel and AMD
etc
etc
etc


This decision makes no sense. As long as there is an equally strong competitor, DOJ needs to step back and let the market work.
 
G

Guest

Guest
After the meger there wouldn't be a T-Mobile from what I understand. The change might not be immediate but eventually everyone would be merged into AT&T. The infrastructure would be combined so that both AT&T and current T-Mobile uses would be using the same network.
 

scook9

Distinguished
Oct 16, 2008
245
0
18,830
0
[citation][nom]Cirdecus[/nom]I don't see a duopoly as a reason for DOJ to step in. It's not like Verizon wouldn't compete with the unified ATT and T-Mobile company.It shouldn't be ATT's fault that Verizon exists. This argument should be whether or not Verizon can stay competitive against ATT instead of whether other companies can stay competitive with the TWO of them.If they're really aiming to make sure 2 companies cannot be dominate in a market, how come they haven't stepped in on:UFC (purchased Strikeforce), monopoly in the MMA sportNvidia and ATI (only 2 mainstream graphics entities)Intel and AMDetcetcetcThis decision makes no sense. As long as there is an equally strong competitor, DOJ needs to step back and let the market work.[/citation]
If left alone businesses will do what is good for business which is never good for the customer/voter/tax payer/citizen. The government is there to protect the customer and their rights. You can call it socialism if you want but when done right the only people it hurts are the elite top of the top rich people, just about everyone (aka 99.99%) benefits considerably - and the rich can still be rich by the way. Or should we just go "hands off" let telco's end up like the banks and have to throw nearly a trillion dollars at them to clean up their mess?
 

jprahman

Distinguished
May 17, 2010
43
0
18,580
1
Wasn't there a story a few days back about how Verizon was petitioning the White House to do something about Apple patent lawsuits against Android? I don't know if that will happen but at least the government helped them out with this.
 

Nesto1000

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2010
38
0
18,590
1
[citation][nom]Cirdecus[/nom]I don't see a duopoly as a reason for DOJ to step in. It's not like Verizon wouldn't compete with the unified ATT and T-Mobile company.It shouldn't be ATT's fault that Verizon exists. This argument should be whether or not Verizon can stay competitive against ATT instead of whether other companies can stay competitive with the TWO of them.If they're really aiming to make sure 2 companies cannot be dominate in a market, how come they haven't stepped in on:UFC (purchased Strikeforce), monopoly in the MMA sportNvidia and ATI (only 2 mainstream graphics entities)Intel and AMDetcetcetcThis decision makes no sense. As long as there is an equally strong competitor, DOJ needs to step back and let the market work.[/citation]

ATT and T-Mobile GSM
Verzion and Sprint CDMA

ATT would create a monopoly over GSM phones in the US, and considering that most phones outside of the US are GSM, I wouldn't like to be stuck with ATT if I acquire a phone overseas.
 

kingbrodij

Distinguished
Dec 22, 2006
7
0
18,510
0
Its Trash mobile, let AT&T have them and become a player in 4G, make Verizon lower their prices, make sprint the new $hity 3rd leader, and a newcomer will step up fill the last place provider
 

kingbrodij

Distinguished
Dec 22, 2006
7
0
18,510
0
and btw, if this merger gets blocked, hasnt poor trash mobile already lost like 200 trillion subscribers since this talk started, sux to be them again
 

ivan_chess

Distinguished
Mar 11, 2010
25
0
18,580
0
Didn't Verizon acquire Alltel a while ago and the only concession they had to make was giving the Mid-Western Alltel branch to ATT?
 

jblack

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2009
42
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]scook9[/nom]Can you please explain how having less companies competing for business is better for the consumer?[/citation]

There would be less towers needed in an area for coverage. The problem is that businesses are greedy and generally less competition means consumers end up paying more. I wouldn't have a problem with a monopoly if they'd keep the prices low.
 

AnUnusedUsername

Distinguished
Sep 14, 2010
43
0
18,580
1
The problem here is that it's a lot like electrical or water companies. There's no reason to have duplicate network infrastructure, and there's only so much "space" for wireless data. It would be a lot more efficient to only have one company. Of course, a single company would charge whatever it wanted to, but it would be more efficient than multiple companies doing the exact same thing. How many places have two, three, or more sets of water pipes to the same houses? It doesn't make sense there, and likewise makes little sense for wireless carriers.
 

bhaberle

Distinguished
Nov 15, 2008
159
0
18,630
0
Woot. Go sneak that shi!t now Sprint. Who cares if you use two completely different technologies that would make it even more costly to combine. I want the option to use sim cards!
 

gallidorn

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2009
33
0
18,580
0
It is sad to think that AT&T does little to nothing to improve their cell phone reception or coverage, unless it means purchasing another company.

If they were able to purchase T-Mobile, it wouldn't mean better coverage, because they would consolidate the cell towers and close stores to increase their profit margins. This is simply an attempt to get rid of the competition and acquire T-Mobile's customers.

It's all about the $$$$$
 

Marthian

Distinguished
Jun 15, 2010
42
0
18,580
0
Thank goodness. I would hate for less options to be available. AT&T is already greedy enough and a bunch of deceitful liars.
 

scook9

Distinguished
Oct 16, 2008
245
0
18,830
0
[citation][nom]AnUnusedUsername[/nom]The problem here is that it's a lot like electrical or water companies. There's no reason to have duplicate network infrastructure, and there's only so much "space" for wireless data. It would be a lot more efficient to only have one company. Of course, a single company would charge whatever it wanted to, but it would be more efficient than multiple companies doing the exact same thing. How many places have two, three, or more sets of water pipes to the same houses? It doesn't make sense there, and likewise makes little sense for wireless carriers.[/citation]
There is nothing stopping companies from leasing tower space from other people/companies....which already happens most of the time by the way. You think Verizon owns all its towers? No, it just owns the equipment hanging off of them, right next to other telco's equipment because both of those companies are leasing tower space off of a 3rd company
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Paul Wagenseil Streaming Video & TVs 6
G Streaming Video & TVs 5
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
G Streaming Video & TVs 9
G Streaming Video & TVs 10
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 6
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 3
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 10
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 2
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 28
Z Streaming Video & TVs 71
Z Streaming Video & TVs 14
Z Streaming Video & TVs 3
Z Streaming Video & TVs 48
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 25
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 26
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 96
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 22
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 37
G Streaming Video & TVs 16

ASK THE COMMUNITY