WirelessAdvisor.com

bobolito · 10-08-2004, 10:04 PM

SBC president opposes divesting wireless assets in merger
By Jeffrey Silva
Oct 6, 2004

WASHINGTON-SBC Communications Inc. President Edward Whitacre today said he opposes having to divest any wireless assets as a condition of winning government approval of the proposed $41 billion merger between Cingular Wireless L.LC. and AT&T Wireless Services Inc. and conceded there is a risk of losing tens of thousands of customers to mobile-phone rivals as a result of the upheaval from the transaction.

"I don't think we should have to divest anything," said Whitacre in an interview with Bloomberg TV.

Whitacre, whose SBC owns 60 percent of Cingular Wireless, would not say whether he would challenge any wireless divestitures required by the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission. BellSouth Corp. holds a 40-percent stake in Cingular.

The Justice Department and FCC are expected shortly to approve the combination of the No. 2 and No. 3 mobile-phone operators, but the agencies could very well direct the wireless operators to sell licenses in several major markets where they control a significant amount of spectrum.

Whitacre disputed that a combined Cingular-AT&T Wireless would have too much market power in markets such as Dallas, Atlanta, San Antonio, San Francisco and Miami.

"I don't think so. There are five, six major competitors in all those areas now-big companies, not small companies, companies as large or larger than Cingular," said Whitacre.

Whitacre did not say what his company would do if ordered to sell wireless holdings to win approval of the deal.

"I'm not privy to the Justice Department or FCC orders, so I don't know what it says," said Whitacre. "They don't show us that … So, I guess we'll just have to see what the deal is and then make a decision."

Whitacre said he has a detailed strategy for combining the two wireless companies, including integrating towers, spectrum, retail stores, workforce and management. "It will be quite a task," he said. Whitacre would not say whether there will be layoffs.

The SBC chief executive officer acknowledged that Verizon Wireless is the best carrier in the business right now, but played down the potential loss of customers to the No.1. mobile-phone company due to the chaos of the merger itself. He said tens of thousands-but not millions-of customers could be lost to other mobile-phone competitors.

http://www.rcrnews.com/news.cms?newsId=19927

bobolito · 10-08-2004, 10:05 PM

I hope this guy doesn't start to challenge any decisions, or else he will delay this whole thing even more than what it is. SBC is just as greedy as Verizon.

ehcruzan · 10-08-2004, 10:54 PM

I just think he's blowing steam...we all know how badly he wants AWE.

Steve B · 10-08-2004, 11:49 PM

If the SBC exec knew what was good for him, he would keep his big yap shut. In simpler terms the SBC exec shouldn't attempt to bite the hand that would be giving the thumbs up.

SNSE · 10-09-2004, 12:34 AM

Ahh, the 800lb gorilla mentality we all know so well from the big boys. Glad to see some things never change....who says power corrupts?

Fire14 · 10-09-2004, 10:33 AM

I wonder if this is a bad sign of things to come, & this whole merger gets blown apart because of some divesture, which they both agreed to in the merger.

jones · 10-09-2004, 2:26 PM

In the Corporate world they do these things.
It's main goal is to boost the value of their stocks or to cushion it if Analyst tries to downgrade their Assets.

Divesting Spectrum may send a Bad/Good News to their Stock.
What's the worse that can Happen if they Appeal these FCC Decisions?

bobolito · 10-10-2004, 4:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fire14

I wonder if this is a bad sign of things to come, & this whole merger gets blown apart because of some divesture, which they both agreed to in the merger.

Just imagine. If they blow the whole thing apart, that would be the biggest mistake SBC would make in its history. Just think of how many millions Cingular has already spent in preparation for this merger creating an integration plan for the networks, IT, marketing, sales, etc. not to mention the merger training sessions. I don't think they made all that effort to throw it all away just for a few thousand customers. And then again, Cingular can't afford to delay this merger a second more, or else they would be risking losing market opportunities and that would be more costly than anything else. I hope they will do the right thing and accept whatever the FCC/DOJ decides without any challenges. It will be better for them in the long run.

rich6880 · 10-10-2004, 8:39 AM

Don't worry guys, the merger will happen on schedule. Everything that happens between now and the actual merger is just window dressing.

jones · 10-10-2004, 10:07 AM

The 2 states that they will exceed 88 Mhz of Spectrum is Texas and Florida.
However this SBC president claims there are 5 carriers competing in this region.

Fire14 · 10-10-2004, 3:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rich6880

Don't worry guys, the merger will happen on schedule. Everything that happens between now and the actual merger is just window dressing.

Well I hope you are right, it just makes you wonder if there timing to say this is right & they are trying to make a small statement to the FCC prior to their approval as a tactic or just trying to be a bully & causing people to worry about it actually happening, especially investors.

Mobile Mike · 10-20-2004, 7:40 PM

I don't think SBC/BellSouth would have any choice. Would they?

Fire14 · 10-21-2004, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lbmike212

I don't think SBC/BellSouth would have any choice. Would they?

Actually i think they can appeal the decision of the FCC if they think it's unfair, Nextel has been with the frequencie changes that the FCC wanted them to do. I don't know if they will wait till the merger is officially done then appeal the decision, so it doesn't delay anything.

Mobile Mike · 10-21-2004, 3:47 PM

What I wonder, though, is what leg they would have to stand on? If the FCC is asking them to divest spectrum that gives them too much share of a market, it seems to me that this isn't an unfair request. I thought all along that they would have to get rid of redundant spectrum in some locations. With a merger of this size, I don't think that's too much of a surprise.

Let's say, for example, that Verizon took over someone like ALLTEL, if the spectrum they already own is in major ALLTEL markets, wouldn't they have to do the same thing in order to appease regulators?

It's interesting to note that Cingular came to be from a merging of SBC and BellSouth's nationwide collections of carriers they own, such as PacBell PCS here in California. The same was true for Verizon, merged from Bell Atlantic, PrimeCo, Airtouch, and another company (I think).

This is such a big merger, I can't help think that somethings got to give....

bobolito · 10-21-2004, 3:49 PM

LOL! can you imagine if Cingular appeals the FCC decision? the case will be taken to courts and we will be waiting forever for the merger! Just let it be! 10,000 customers is not a big deal next to the other 47.6 million they will have.

Let me put it this way: if Cingular loses 10,000 or even 20,000 customers as a result of divestitures, this means they will be dropping from about 47.63 million customers down to 47.61 million customers. This is a very insignificant figure to start fighting about in courts and delay the merger and risk losing market opportunities, especially now with the holidays coming around the corner.

Fire14 · 10-21-2004, 3:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobolito

LOL! can you imagine if Cingular appeals the FCC decision? the case will be taken to courts and we will be waiting forever for the merger! Just let it be! 10,000 customers is not a big deal next to the other 47.6 million they will have.

Let me put it this way: if Cingular loses 10,000 or even 20,000 customers as a result of divestitures, this means they will be dropping from about 47.63 million customers down to 47.61 million customers. This is a very insignificant figure to start fighting about in courts and delay the merger and risk losing market opportunities, especially now with the holidays coming around the corner.

Oh i agree 100% that it would be the stupidest move they could make & I am sure Cingular has already told him to back down, that it would cost too much to fight & isn't worth it. Especially when they are now up to over 47 Million customers when it happens.

NYCDru · 10-21-2004, 5:05 PM

Cingular blows this one it would be Suicide. Well...at least massive self mutilation.

I wonder wht VZW is going to resond with?

viewfly · 10-21-2004, 6:13 PM

Ah, a little game of brinkmanship, on the eve of the elections coming up. Which party supports big business at the expense of goverment over regulation?

brinkmanship n. The practice, especially in international politics, of seeking advantage by creating the impression that one is willing and able to push a highly dangerous situation to the limit rather than concede.

SBC's CEO is a player, trying to get the most he can.

bobolito · 10-21-2004, 10:18 PM

Stanley Sigman is smarter than Edward Whitacre.

agentHibby · 10-22-2004, 2:35 PM

I think SBC has to have brains to know that contesting any divestment is not wise at all!
Verizon predessors had more brains than that. Cingular would be in jeopardy
of losing the buyout and would give someone else like Vodafone another shot at getting AT&T Wireless.
I don't want Airtouch to back in business under the controll of Vodafone that all.

10-08-2004, 10:04 PM	#1
bobolito iPhone 3G 16GB (White) Join Date: May 2002 Location: in front of my computer Posts: 12,543 Phone(s): iPhone 3G, Sierra 875 3G Aircard Provider(s): AT&T Mobility Devices: WiFi cards/Access points Thanks: 3 Thanked 17 Times in 14 Posts Images: 50 My Auctions	Greedy SBC doesn't want to divest any assets in Cingular merger... SBC president opposes divesting wireless assets in merger By Jeffrey Silva Oct 6, 2004 WASHINGTON-SBC Communications Inc. President Edward Whitacre today said he opposes having to divest any wireless assets as a condition of winning government approval of the proposed $41 billion merger between Cingular Wireless L.LC. and AT&T Wireless Services Inc. and conceded there is a risk of losing tens of thousands of customers to mobile-phone rivals as a result of the upheaval from the transaction. "I don't think we should have to divest anything," said Whitacre in an interview with Bloomberg TV. Whitacre, whose SBC owns 60 percent of Cingular Wireless, would not say whether he would challenge any wireless divestitures required by the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission. BellSouth Corp. holds a 40-percent stake in Cingular. The Justice Department and FCC are expected shortly to approve the combination of the No. 2 and No. 3 mobile-phone operators, but the agencies could very well direct the wireless operators to sell licenses in several major markets where they control a significant amount of spectrum. Whitacre disputed that a combined Cingular-AT&T Wireless would have too much market power in markets such as Dallas, Atlanta, San Antonio, San Francisco and Miami. "I don't think so. There are five, six major competitors in all those areas now-big companies, not small companies, companies as large or larger than Cingular," said Whitacre. Whitacre did not say what his company would do if ordered to sell wireless holdings to win approval of the deal. "I'm not privy to the Justice Department or FCC orders, so I don't know what it says," said Whitacre. "They don't show us that … So, I guess we'll just have to see what the deal is and then make a decision." Whitacre said he has a detailed strategy for combining the two wireless companies, including integrating towers, spectrum, retail stores, workforce and management. "It will be quite a task," he said. Whitacre would not say whether there will be layoffs. The SBC chief executive officer acknowledged that Verizon Wireless is the best carrier in the business right now, but played down the potential loss of customers to the No.1. mobile-phone company due to the chaos of the merger itself. He said tens of thousands-but not millions-of customers could be lost to other mobile-phone competitors. http://www.rcrnews.com/news.cms?newsId=19927 __________________

10-08-2004, 10:05 PM	Original Poster #2
bobolito iPhone 3G 16GB (White) Join Date: May 2002 Location: in front of my computer Posts: 12,543 Phone(s): iPhone 3G, Sierra 875 3G Aircard Provider(s): AT&T Mobility Devices: WiFi cards/Access points Thanks: 3 Thanked 17 Times in 14 Posts Images: 50 My Auctions	Re: Greedy SBC doesn't want to divest any assets in Cingular merger... I hope this guy doesn't start to challenge any decisions, or else he will delay this whole thing even more than what it is. SBC is just as greedy as Verizon. __________________

10-08-2004, 10:54 PM	#3
ehcruzan Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: US Virgin Islands Posts: 754 Phone(s): iPhone 3GS Provider(s): AT&T Mobility Devices: iPod Touch 2G, WiFi gear Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Greedy SBC doesn't want to divest any assets in Cingular merger... I just think he's blowing steam...we all know how badly he wants AWE.

10-08-2004, 11:49 PM	#4
Steve B Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 788 Phone(s): Blackberry Storm 2, Motorola W755-Purple Provider(s): Verizon Wireless Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Greedy SBC doesn't want to divest any assets in Cingular merger... If the SBC exec knew what was good for him, he would keep his big yap shut. In simpler terms the SBC exec shouldn't attempt to bite the hand that would be giving the thumbs up. __________________ There's A Map For That

10-09-2004, 12:34 AM	#5
SNSE Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 403 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Greedy SBC doesn't want to divest any assets in Cingular merger... Ahh, the 800lb gorilla mentality we all know so well from the big boys. Glad to see some things never change....who says power corrupts?

WirelessAdvisor.com

Wireless News

Greedy SBC doesn't want to divest any assets in Cingular merger... in Wireless Topics; "SBC president opposes divesting wireless assets in merger By Jeffrey ..."

WirelessAdvisor.com

10-09-2004, 10:33 AM	#6
Fire14 Easy,Cheap & Sleazy Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Union County NJ Posts: 8,457 Phone(s): EnV, V750 Provider(s): Verizon Thanks: 2 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post Images: 293 My Auctions	Re: Greedy SBC doesn't want to divest any assets in Cingular merger... I wonder if this is a bad sign of things to come, & this whole merger gets blown apart because of some divesture, which they both agreed to in the merger.

10-09-2004, 2:26 PM	#7
jones Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 3,425 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Greedy SBC doesn't want to divest any assets in Cingular merger... In the Corporate world they do these things. It's main goal is to boost the value of their stocks or to cushion it if Analyst tries to downgrade their Assets. Divesting Spectrum may send a Bad/Good News to their Stock. What's the worse that can Happen if they Appeal these FCC Decisions? __________________ - 3 Billion GSM Users by 2009. - 700 GSM Carriers in 220 Countries - 82% of the Global Market 45,000 Cell Sites and Adding. Last edited by jones; 10-09-2004 at 2:59 PM.

10-10-2004, 8:39 AM	#9
rich6880 Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Fairfield CT Posts: 682 Phone(s): Nokia 3589i, LG VX4400 (returned), Audiovox Z800 (backup), Motorola Talk About(dead) Provider(s): Verizon Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Greedy SBC doesn't want to divest any assets in Cingular merger... Don't worry guys, the merger will happen on schedule. Everything that happens between now and the actual merger is just window dressing. __________________ Richard

10-10-2004, 10:07 AM	#10
jones Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 3,425 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Greedy SBC doesn't want to divest any assets in Cingular merger... The 2 states that they will exceed 88 Mhz of Spectrum is Texas and Florida. However this SBC president claims there are 5 carriers competing in this region. __________________ - 3 Billion GSM Users by 2009. - 700 GSM Carriers in 220 Countries - 82% of the Global Market 45,000 Cell Sites and Adding.

10-20-2004, 7:40 PM	#12
Mobile Mike Mobile Enthusiast Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 5,908 Phone(s): LG Voyager, Nokia 6263 Provider(s): Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile. Formerly AT&T, Nextel Devices: 80gb iPod, Dell laptop Thanks: 86 Thanked 62 Times in 61 Posts	Re: Greedy SBC doesn't want to divest any assets in Cingular merger... I don't think SBC/BellSouth would have any choice. Would they? __________________ Started with PacTel Cellular (1994) which became AIRTOUCH (1994-2000) which became verizonwireless (2000-present). Back with -T- Mobile (2004-2009, 2009-present)

10-21-2004, 3:47 PM	#14
Mobile Mike Mobile Enthusiast Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 5,908 Phone(s): LG Voyager, Nokia 6263 Provider(s): Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile. Formerly AT&T, Nextel Devices: 80gb iPod, Dell laptop Thanks: 86 Thanked 62 Times in 61 Posts	Re: Greedy SBC doesn't want to divest any assets in Cingular merger... What I wonder, though, is what leg they would have to stand on? If the FCC is asking them to divest spectrum that gives them too much share of a market, it seems to me that this isn't an unfair request. I thought all along that they would have to get rid of redundant spectrum in some locations. With a merger of this size, I don't think that's too much of a surprise. Let's say, for example, that Verizon took over someone like ALLTEL, if the spectrum they already own is in major ALLTEL markets, wouldn't they have to do the same thing in order to appease regulators? It's interesting to note that Cingular came to be from a merging of SBC and BellSouth's nationwide collections of carriers they own, such as PacBell PCS here in California. The same was true for Verizon, merged from Bell Atlantic, PrimeCo, Airtouch, and another company (I think). This is such a big merger, I can't help think that somethings got to give.... __________________ Started with PacTel Cellular (1994) which became AIRTOUCH (1994-2000) which became verizonwireless (2000-present). Back with -T- Mobile (2004-2009, 2009-present)

10-21-2004, 3:49 PM	Original Poster #15
bobolito iPhone 3G 16GB (White) Join Date: May 2002 Location: in front of my computer Posts: 12,543 Phone(s): iPhone 3G, Sierra 875 3G Aircard Provider(s): AT&T Mobility Devices: WiFi cards/Access points Thanks: 3 Thanked 17 Times in 14 Posts Images: 50 My Auctions	Re: Greedy SBC doesn't want to divest any assets in Cingular merger... LOL! can you imagine if Cingular appeals the FCC decision? the case will be taken to courts and we will be waiting forever for the merger! Just let it be! 10,000 customers is not a big deal next to the other 47.6 million they will have. Let me put it this way: if Cingular loses 10,000 or even 20,000 customers as a result of divestitures, this means they will be dropping from about 47.63 million customers down to 47.61 million customers. This is a very insignificant figure to start fighting about in courts and delay the merger and risk losing market opportunities, especially now with the holidays coming around the corner. __________________

10-21-2004, 5:05 PM	#17
NYCDru Sprint Newbie Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 3,255 Phone(s): Motrola V3m, Moto E815, Audiovox 9900, Audiovox 8900, LGvx 10,, Nokia 3360, Moto P8767 Provider(s): Sprint, Verizon(former), ATT(former), Devices: IPod Nano. Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Greedy SBC doesn't want to divest any assets in Cingular merger... Cingular blows this one it would be Suicide. Well...at least massive self mutilation. I wonder wht VZW is going to resond with?

10-21-2004, 6:13 PM	#18
viewfly Mobile Advisor Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Connecticut Posts: 2,441 Phone(s): iPhone 3G S 32Gb, 3G8 Gb, Nokia 61316230b, Moto RAZR V3 Provider(s): AT&T GSM and it's predecessors since 1995 Devices: HS700, NuviGPS,Ipod Thanks: 24 Thanked 44 Times in 29 Posts	Re: Greedy SBC doesn't want to divest any assets in Cingular merger... Ah, a little game of brinkmanship, on the eve of the elections coming up. Which party supports big business at the expense of goverment over regulation? brinkmanship n. The practice, especially in international politics, of seeking advantage by creating the impression that one is willing and able to push a highly dangerous situation to the limit rather than concede. SBC's CEO is a player, trying to get the most he can.

10-21-2004, 10:18 PM	Original Poster #19
bobolito iPhone 3G 16GB (White) Join Date: May 2002 Location: in front of my computer Posts: 12,543 Phone(s): iPhone 3G, Sierra 875 3G Aircard Provider(s): AT&T Mobility Devices: WiFi cards/Access points Thanks: 3 Thanked 17 Times in 14 Posts Images: 50 My Auctions	Re: Greedy SBC doesn't want to divest any assets in Cingular merger... Stanley Sigman is smarter than Edward Whitacre. __________________

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads for: Greedy SBC doesn't want to divest any assets in Cingular merger...
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Alltel ordered to sell assets in merger	jones	Wireless News	14	07-09-2005 12:05 AM
Alltel/WW merger divest Nebraska	eprint	Central US Wireless Forum	8	01-23-2005 3:05 PM
Cingular Begins to Divest	rich6880	Wireless News	11	11-28-2004 12:53 PM
Cingular Sells Some Assets to Alltel	ComicalMoodyDan	AT&T Wireless Users	0	11-26-2004 7:35 PM
Cingular to buy some US Unwired assets	jayc	Wireless News	10	09-19-2003 7:10 PM

10-22-2004, 2:35 PM	#20
agentHibby Iowa Cellular Guru Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: SID 150 or 1214 Posts: 3,472 Phone(s): Nokia 6256i, (retired) Motorola V120c, Timeport 270c, Nokia 252 (Airtouch) Provider(s): Verizon Wireless Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Greedy SBC doesn't want to divest any assets in Cingular merger... I think SBC has to have brains to know that contesting any divestment is not wise at all! Verizon predessors had more brains than that. Cingular would be in jeopardy of losing the buyout and would give someone else like Vodafone another shot at getting AT&T Wireless. I don't want Airtouch to back in business under the controll of Vodafone that all. __________________ If Verizon can buy out their affiliates they would be better off.