Help
Post your comments for Lawmakers question AT&T acquisition of T-Mobile here
Lawmakers question AT&T acquisition of T-Mobile
#2
AKMacMan 
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 44
- Joined: 01-December 09
Posted 26 May 2011 - 12:58 PM
“This transaction is about consumers,” Stephenson said. “It’s about, specifically, keeping up with consumer demand. It’s about giving consumers what they expect — that’s fewer dropped calls, faster speeds and access to high-speed, fourth-generation LTE [Long-Term Evolution] service.”
Why not take that $39 billion and apply that towards your existing network for both expansions and upgrades based off demand??
I'm sorry, but I don't believe AT&T with that statement. Less competition and higher prices for mobile voice and data is not what customers want.
Why not take that $39 billion and apply that towards your existing network for both expansions and upgrades based off demand??
I'm sorry, but I don't believe AT&T with that statement. Less competition and higher prices for mobile voice and data is not what customers want.
#3
QCassidy352
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 194
- Joined: 30-March 09
Posted 26 May 2011 - 01:09 PM
"Less competition" can be good when you're talking about something like a nationwide network. There's a natural economy and benefit to consolidating in this field. Now, that could also go too far, but I don't think this deal does that. There would still be 3 serious nationwide options as well as a substantial number of increasingly viable regional carriers. That's pretty far from a monopoly, and frankly, T-Mo is barely a true nationwide as it is.
And I don't buy the argument that prices will go up. AT&T already primarily competes against Verizon, and they're still going to have to do that.
And I don't buy the argument that prices will go up. AT&T already primarily competes against Verizon, and they're still going to have to do that.
#4
Howard_Ellegant
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 51
- Joined: 06-October 06
Posted 26 May 2011 - 01:10 PM
AKMacMan, on 26 May 2011 - 12:58 PM, said:
“This transaction is about consumers,” Stephenson said. “It’s about, specifically, keeping up with consumer demand. It’s about giving consumers what they expect — that’s fewer dropped calls, faster speeds and access to high-speed, fourth-generation LTE [Long-Term Evolution] service.”
Why not take that $39 billion and apply that towards your existing network for both expansions and upgrades based off demand??
I'm sorry, but I don't believe AT&T with that statement. Less competition and higher prices for mobile voice and data is not what customers want.
Why not take that $39 billion and apply that towards your existing network for both expansions and upgrades based off demand??
I'm sorry, but I don't believe AT&T with that statement. Less competition and higher prices for mobile voice and data is not what customers want.
Stehenson and Oberman are trying to double talk their way to lining their pockets. In one breath they talk about rolling out more coverage quicker across the country and in another the money will go to building more cell towers in LA and San Francisco. Huh? If AT&T has $39 billion at its disposal, makes sense to me to invest in its own infrastructure to compete much more effectively against T-Mobile. Is Gordon Gecko waiting in the wings? As in all these cases, follow the money...
#5
jdb8167
- Veteran
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2,533
- Joined: 30-August 04
Posted 26 May 2011 - 01:12 PM
AKMacMan, on 26 May 2011 - 12:58 PM, said:
Why not take that $39 billion and apply that towards your existing network for both expansions and upgrades based off demand??
Probably because they can't. Don't you think they want to build more towers? I've seen quotes that it takes 36 to 48 months to get a new tower approved. In some cases it is essentially impossible. There are a couple of towns near where I live west of Boston that simply will not allow new towers to be built in their town. The only way to get new towers in that case is to buy existing ones. T-Mobile has a lot of towers and their business is probably not viable in the long term.
#6
drdreric
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 284
- Joined: 03-March 04
Posted 26 May 2011 - 01:20 PM
QCassidy352, on 26 May 2011 - 01:09 PM, said:
And I don't buy the argument that prices will go up. AT&T already primarily competes against Verizon, and they're still going to have to do that.
When there are only two suppliers, they know each other's prices. There is no incentive for a price war, they both lose money. The result is they raise rates steadily in lockstep. No collusion required, self-interest makes it happen. When they are making tons of money, the shareholders are happy. When they own all the spectrum there can be no new competitors. Game over until a truly disruptive technology comes along that they are too stupid to buy with their excessive profits.
This is why government owned utilities aren't such a bad idea in some respects. I am annoyed at my state legislators (NC) for trying to stamp out municipal WiFi.
This post has been edited by drdreric: 26 May 2011 - 01:20 PM
#8
rob53
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 197
- Joined: 06-March 09
Posted 26 May 2011 - 01:28 PM
If it were up to the cell phone user, there would be one network, that was fast with cell towers installed at regular intervals throughout the US. There would be one transmission protocol that allows voice and data at the same time. I don't care how many cell phone manufacturers are out there, just have them all operate on the same network. Do this and we could get rid of all the stupid and costly ads trying to sell competing cell networks. Take all that money and put it back into a good, redundant cellular infrastructure we could depend on.
Of course, in this country, big business and politicians who get paid off will never let that happen.
Of course, in this country, big business and politicians who get paid off will never let that happen.
#10
OriginalMacRat
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 112
- Joined: 18-December 08
Posted 26 May 2011 - 01:37 PM
This week T-Mobile changed the prices on their web site raising them to match ATT's inflated pricing.
Anyone really think this merger won't get rubber stamped approval?
Anyone really think this merger won't get rubber stamped approval?
#11
lhudd
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 504
- Joined: 16-November 04
Posted 26 May 2011 - 01:55 PM
Sure, you're adding the Tmobile towers, but you're also adding EVERY Tmobile customer. So the Att subscriber base, that will still need to run off the ATT network (while they prepare the LTE with the old tmobile network) will dramatically increase with no additional capacity.
#12
RicD
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 33
- Joined: 18-May 09
Posted 26 May 2011 - 04:43 PM
drdreric, on 26 May 2011 - 01:20 PM, said:
QCassidy352, on 26 May 2011 - 01:09 PM, said:
And I don't buy the argument that prices will go up. AT&T already primarily competes against Verizon, and they're still going to have to do that.
When there are only two suppliers, they know each other's prices. There is no incentive for a price war, they both lose money. The result is they raise rates steadily in lockstep. No collusion required, self-interest makes it happen. When they are making tons of money, the shareholders are happy. When they own all the spectrum there can be no new competitors. Game over until a truly disruptive technology comes along that they are too stupid to buy with their excessive profits.
This is why government owned utilities aren't such a bad idea in some respects. I am annoyed at my state legislators (NC) for trying to stamp out municipal WiFi.
There are over 300 cell companies in the USA. AT&T along with Verizon are the two largest of those 300.
#13
AKMacMan
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 44
- Joined: 01-December 09
Posted 26 May 2011 - 05:50 PM
jdb8167, on 26 May 2011 - 01:12 PM, said:
AKMacMan, on 26 May 2011 - 12:58 PM, said:
Why not take that $39 billion and apply that towards your existing network for both expansions and upgrades based off demand??
Probably because they can't. Don't you think they want to build more towers? I've seen quotes that it takes 36 to 48 months to get a new tower approved. In some cases it is essentially impossible. There are a couple of towns near where I live west of Boston that simply will not allow new towers to be built in their town. The only way to get new towers in that case is to buy existing ones. T-Mobile has a lot of towers and their business is probably not viable in the long term.
Then that is not AT&T's fault. If people are wanting the service, then AT&T needs to get the information out to the customers in affected areas to have customers and other people talk to their elected officials. Sorry but I don't buy, "Well no one is able to put any towers up in America anymore so we have to buy other carriers to have 'new' towers."
#14
rmossman
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 211
- Joined: 20-March 01
Posted 26 May 2011 - 06:57 PM
AKMacMan, on 26 May 2011 - 05:50 PM, said:
Then that is not AT&T's fault. If people are wanting the service, then AT&T needs to get the information out to the customers in affected areas to have customers and other people talk to their elected officials. Sorry but I don't buy, "Well no one is able to put any towers up in America anymore so we have to buy other carriers to have 'new' towers."
This comment is close to the mark. Too many cell phone users say "Not in my backyard" when it comes to putting up cell towers but are quick to complain about lack of coverage. I will also say that AT&T recently put up a tower in my area and it's hardly visible. It is painted to match the surroundings. I agree with the comments about using some of the $39 M to improve service and keep competition as it is.
