AT&T Files A Response To The DOJ, Claims They Just Don’t Get It

More like this
24

Comments

Comments are closed on this article

avatar

RET_ARMY

September 12, 2011 at 11:46am

"According to AT&T, T-Mobile has been bleeding customers for years now, and it’s German parent company was unlikely to continue investing in it. To counter these claims, AT&T claims its spent over $30 billion over the last two years in attempts to strengthen up its network, but is struggling to keep up with market demand. "

 

So lets add the Acer Icornia A501 to the network, and clog it more. Juts pay us......

avatar

RET_ARMY

September 12, 2011 at 11:45am

"According to AT&T, T-Mobile has been bleeding customers for years now, and it’s German parent company was unlikely to continue investing in it. To counter these claims, AT&T claims its spent over $30 billion over the last two years in attempts to strengthen up its network, but is struggling to keep up with market demand. "

 

So lets add the Acer Icornia A501 to the network, and clog it more. Juts pay us......

avatar

solidtran

September 12, 2011 at 2:09am

haha I hope at&t dies a horrible death! for once the government gets something right!

avatar

wintercoder

September 11, 2011 at 8:51pm

Having dealt with corporate representation from all the major (and a few of the minor) carriers, I can honestly say that the most conceited representation and pricing comes from Verizon.

They have created 'monopolistic' environments in hundreds of small markets, to the point that AT&T and others just simply cannot justify the expansion... as the ROI will not be there for many years.

With the combined install base of T-Mobile and ATT, however, an argument could be made that such expansion might now have a shorter ROI.

We recently switched *many* (>1000) lines of service from T-Mobile to ATT and have experience a significant increase in coverage area.

All this beating up on AT&T shows a blind ignorance to the fact that there is an elephant in the room. Namely, Verizon. Verizon may have a larger coverage area but offers little to justify the much higher price tag on their service.

avatar

Raswan

September 11, 2011 at 9:26pm

No one is dismissing the retardedness of Verizon when they rip on AT &T for being arrogant and stupid and greedy enough to make this move. In fact, you're making their point for them--that more competition is good, and less is bad. So chill.

avatar

wintercoder

September 12, 2011 at 7:50am

Yes. More competition IS good. But Verizon has grown too large for smaller cellular providers to compete with... especially in the smaller markets.

They need someone their own size to compete with... this merger will do that.

By denying the merger, the government is handing Verizon what amounts to a competition free environment (especially in small markets) for years to come.

avatar

big_montana

September 12, 2011 at 9:45am

There is nothing wrong with denying the merger, as approving it will not enhance competition, the reverse will happen. I was with AT&T when Cingualr purchased them, and Cingular refused to honor any of AT&T's low cost plans, and it did not matter if you still were under contract. I ended up taking my business to Sprint, which would make a better partner for T-Mobil than AT&T would. A combined SPrint/T-Mobile would give Sprint 90 million customers, close to both what AT&T and Verizon have currently. Three companies with around the same customer base, instead of two, that is competition.

avatar

QUINTIX256

September 12, 2011 at 6:07am

There will not be much competition left if what remains of T-Mobile continues to bleed to death. AT&T is willing and able to put money into their network. Deutsche Telekom is not. It is that simple.

avatar

compro01

September 12, 2011 at 7:02am

$1.3 billion profits per quarter is "bleeding to death".

 

They are losing customers, but very slowly, about 200k per year, out of 33.5 million.  That's about 0.6% per year.  Hardly a severed artery.

avatar

JimmerSD

September 11, 2011 at 3:33pm

..as a former ATT customer and a current Tmobile customer all I have to say is...GO DOJ!

avatar

lindethier

September 11, 2011 at 2:14pm

I hate AT&T as well. I know of a few friends on T-Mobile that will jump ship if AT&T acquires them. AT&T continues to set the bar of how to have terrible customer service as well as terrible service in general.

avatar

Eoraptor

September 11, 2011 at 2:05pm

AT&T has failed at every turn to justify their megalopoly, up to and including treating US Jobs as a negotiating chip to force the FCC to agree. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/att-to-bring-5000-call-center-jobs-back-to-us-following-t-mobile-merger-closing-128723183.html

The writing is on the wall, and unless they intend to tell the FCC to just go stuff it and do the merger anyway (I'd love to see what happens then, such as stipping AT&T of their bandwidth) it's DOA. Pointing and name calling the one part of the US Government that actually still seems to be trying to represent the people is not the way to get in your customer's good graces.

avatar

prckomm

September 11, 2011 at 1:43pm

I hate AT&T with a passion, and how is eliminating competion bad for competition, well,,, aaa aa

avatar

CaptainFabulous

September 11, 2011 at 10:58am

What part of "you lied thru your teeth to us, so we're gonna shut down this merger" doesn't AT&T understand?

avatar

QUINTIX256

September 11, 2011 at 11:38am

What exactly have they lied about?

That aside, this is a political move on the part of Obama's Justice Department. Nothing more.

avatar

Carlidan

September 11, 2011 at 4:08pm

Never knew Obama had his own Justice Department. So does that mean every other presidents have the own? Now Obama can select a candiate to head the DOJ but it will still be up to Congress to approve that person to head it. Well that was what I thought how it worked. 

avatar

CaptainFabulous

September 11, 2011 at 11:43am

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Leaked-ATT-Letter-Demolishes-Case-For-TMobile-Merger-115652

avatar

QUINTIX256

September 11, 2011 at 12:05pm

I stopped reading at

>keep T-Mobile out of Sprint's hands

They have incompatible networks.

avatar

big_montana

September 12, 2011 at 9:49am

So what. Sprint was negotiating with DT to purchase T-Mobile before AT&T stepped in and topped their offer. Sprint was planning, and still is, on changing to LTE (why do you think they signed an agreement with Lightsquared, who only rollouts out LTE).

avatar

Carlidan

September 11, 2011 at 4:16pm

Let me get this straight. He proved that AT&T lied and you diss miss it. Now AT&T should get it because compatible networks? Hey if AT&T and T-mobile is losing money and business, maybe it's time for them to file of bankruptcy. I don't want another too big to fail business that taxpayers have to pay later. 

avatar

Hamburger

September 11, 2011 at 2:15pm

Incompatible networks? That didn't keep Sprint from making the stupid move of buying out Nextel.  What a cluster that was.

avatar

QUINTIX256

September 12, 2011 at 5:50pm

>That didn't keep sprint from...

Nextel, like verizon, is a non-GSM network. They seem to be moving toward the Global Standard (verizon is adding SIM card support), and Verizon does offer some GSM enabled "world phones", nevertheless, nextel had a far more compatible network than T-Mobile.

That aside, Karl Bode's speculation reads like regurgitated George Soros talking points. I have yet to see where the actual alleged AT&T lies are. Claiming AT&T was trying to get T-Mobile before Sprint could is a laughable outright lie. This proves nothing.

avatar

Carlidan

September 12, 2011 at 11:53pm

Ah had to put the George Soros comment in. It's another socialist communist plot from Soros to take over America right. I don't like people who discredit something while not proving otherwise, as your doing. At least MaximumMike would try to agrue his point with some kind of evidence. You on the other hand just argue something you disagree with 'talking points'. I don't see anything you posted that dispute it. I wonder why. 

avatar

Eoraptor

September 12, 2011 at 6:11pm

Actually, it reads quite clearly. I didn't even have to dive past the first link.

-AT&T would only have to invest aproximately six billion dollars to increase their LTE coverage from 80% to 95%. in January, they actively chose not to make that investment on the grounds that the return on investment was not there.

-Less than two weeks later AT&T announced that it wished to purchase T-mobile from Deutch Telekom. primarily on the grounds that it would enable them to achieve that said-same 95% LTE coverage. Their offering price? thirty-nine billion dollars. Easily over 6 times what it would cost them to make the same expansion on their own.

the ONLY logical answer is that they are far more interested in dismantling a competitor and purchasing their spectrum (when they already control more spectrum than any other US Carrier) because they will, in fact, not even be able to utilize a lot of the T-mobile equipment post merger, and will, in fact, in addition to the initial price of the merger, have to aquire debts, have to acquire costs associated with fireing personel, and have to absorb the costs od dismantling a lot of in-place equipment. Obviously it's not about expanding coverage, which they could do for less than a tenth the total cost, so much as it is about securing even more of a monopoly.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.
Don't have an account? Join Now.