QWEST P***** Qwest protests SBC-AT&T merger Proposed union not in public's interest, company warns The Associated Press Updated: 8:01 p.m. ET April 18, 2005 Qwest Communications has filed the first of an expected series of protests against the SBC Communications-AT&T merger, telling California regulators the combined company would hurt consumers and businesses. In a document made public Monday, Qwest also asked the California Public Utilities Commission to examine the SBC-AT&T merger along with a proposed union of MCI Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. “It is difficult to see how these two transactions could ever be found to be in the public interest,” said Qwest, which has been spurned in its multiple efforts to buy MCI. Denver-based Qwest Communications International Inc. plans to file additional protests as other states begin considering the mergers. “We’re likely to file where we believe industry concentration threatens competitive and customer interests,” spokesman Bob Toevs said. SBC spokesman Dave Pacholczyk said Qwest “seems to be of two minds. They want to merge with MCI, but they don’t want us to merge with AT&T. We’re mystified by the contradiction,” he said. The filing comes as Qwest continues to weigh its options for the pursuit of the Ashburn, Va.-based MCI. Qwest, the dominant local phone carrier in 14 Northwestern and Western states, first broached the competitive argument in late February. It contends industry consolidation will eliminate competition, which could lead to higher prices. Qwest Chairman and CEO **** Notebaert argued last month that an MCI-Qwest merger would allow more competition than MCI-Verizon. Representatives of Verizon, MCI, SBC and AT&T have said their mergers will provide for plenty of competition. Earlier this month, MCI rebuffed Qwest’s $8.9 billion buyout offer in favor of a $7.5 billion deal with New York-based Verizon, the predominant local phone company in the Northeast. MCI’s board has voiced concern about Qwest’s financial health — it has $17 billion in debt — and the long-term value of the shares Qwest would use as partial payment to MCI shareholders. San Antonio-based SBC agreed in January to acquire AT&T for $16 billion. In the filing, Qwest asked California regulators to examine the plans of SBC and Verizon for competing in each other’s territories if the deals are finalized. It noted that other states likely will commence similar investigations. “Regulators will have to examine this level of concentration and evaluate its potential to harm consumers through higher prices, reduced service quality and less innovation,” Qwest wrote.
I think if this is the way they are going to act when they don't get there way, it may be a good thing they didn't win the MCI Bid.
Qwest is still working on buying MCI still even though Verizon now owns part of the company. I think Verizon needs to start buying stock in Qwest so they can shut them up as well! They are against both mergers AT&T/SBC and VZ/MCI why?? Qwest probably will be on the table to sell in a year or so. Now what if Alltel bought out Qwest....... :hmm:
Then there were 7 Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, NYNEX, Pacific Telesis, SBC, US West Then there were 6 Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, Pacific Telesis, SBC, US West Then there were 5 Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, SBC, US West Now there are 4 BellSouth, Qwest, SBC, Verizon When will there be three???
Here is a thought about this situation. Qwest realizes it probably will not get MCI. It also knows it's saddles with 17Billion in debt. They realize that with the two mergers, Qwest is going to be the little runt of the group with some competition from the big boys. People will want to start flocking to the merged companies, which means if Qwest wants to stay in business, they would have to seriously lower prices to compete. However, they can't really lower prices because they have to gouge their customers in order to settle the large debt. What do you guys think?
All I have to add is that if they had lower prices I'd still be with them. I switched my local phone service from Qwest to a small company called U.S. Tel, am saving about $10 a month and am getting much more features, even 60 free LD minutes(which I never use anyways). Qwest has a bad reputation among many people, since they're known for ripping people off...this is what will destroy a business even more than being uncompetitive. I don't think people will start flocking to the merged companies, unless they are much more competitive, fair, and offer better services. ~Andy
I use Qwest for my landline and DSL. There are two reasons why I use Qwest, one is because another person in this household wants a dam landline even though I said we're fine with cell phones. I want Qwest DSL because I don't want to give Comcast anymore money than I have to. I am stuck with Comcast for CATV.
Is there no other options for you other than Qwest DSL and Cable? Also, how much do you pay for Qwest local service every month and what do you get?
Being in Northern Arizona, we don't have the luxury to choose Cox over Qwest like the people in Phoenix do. (I miss that company!) But sense I'm leaving for Brazil, I don't feel like upgrading to CableOne.net Internet with Vonage. I only have three months left here, then a month back in Massachusetts, then off to Brazil. I read about how Qwest is protesting the SBC/AT&T merger in the paper today. It sounds like Qwest to do a stupid thing like that. Let me tell ya, as soon as I get back to the US... I will no longer be their customer!
Well, there are other internet providers such as Covad (too expensive for what you get), Earthlink (but you have to have a contract, NO WAY!), and sattelite internet, but that is not an option because it's too slow and I can't get satellite. Of course, there is dial up, but well that's an obvious no.
I still use dialup, lol. Actually I use dialup, my Verizon National Access, and a LAN network at school(which I set my laptop up for use...not neccesarily legal, but oh well ).
I guess Qwest thinks that their union with MCI is the only one in the public's best interest, but any other union is not! Talk about double-standards here.
There were up to 34 Bell Operating Companies until the Regional Bell Operation Companies (RBOC) took place. Only 2 Bell Operating Companies did AT&T did have owership Cincinnati Bell and Southern New England Telephone (SNET) "Now with SBC".
I see. I was just commenting on the fact that there were originally more than 7 (thought you were referring to all Baby Bells).
Why did Qwest's stock spike? http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~26430~2841922,00.html Price spikes late on three consecutive days in March pushed Qwest's share price just above a critical "collar" price of $3.74. Had the price closed below that collar, investor confidence in Qwest's bid for MCI could have been shaken, according to Jim Cramer, a former hedge-fund manager and columnist with TheStreet.com "It's probably somebody manipulating Qwest's stock, but they can probably get away with it," he said. "It's very hard to get the government to investigate these things." Manipulating share price or volume is illegal in most cases under U.S. securities law. Late-day activity pushed sinking shares above critical merger collar Price spikes late on three consecutive days in March pushed Qwest's share price just above a critical "collar" price of $3.74. Had the price closed below that collar, investor confidence in Qwest's bid for MCI could have been shaken, according to Jim Cramer, a former hedge-fund manager and columnist with TheStreet.com "It's probably somebody manipulating Qwest's stock, but they can probably get away with it," he said. "It's very hard to get the government to investigate these things." Manipulating share price or volume is illegal in most cases under U.S. securities law. The Denver office of the Securities and Exchange Commission is aware of the trading patterns in Qwest stock but declined to comment. Denver-based Qwest has been been in a bidding war with New York-based Verizon over MCI for three months. "As a matter of company policy, we do not comment on stock price," Qwest spokesman Tyler Gronbach said. "There may be hedge funds that want to keep Qwest's stock above a certain price," said Lee Korins, a past chairman of the Pacific and Philadelphia stock exchanges who is now a finance professor at the University of Northern Colorado. "But the only way to find out is to subpoena records and find out who did the buying every afternoon." The late-day price spikes in Qwest stock occurred as the Denver-based phone company was in heated pursuit of MCI, which had a definitive merger agreement with Verizon. Maintaining its stock price was key to Qwest's offer for MCI, which at the time was $25.60 a share in cash and stock. Qwest guaranteed the value of its stock within a 10 percent collar above and below $4.15 per Qwest share. If the price fell below the collar, MCI shareholders could receive less for their Qwest shares in a possible Qwest- MCI merger. The stock never closed below the $3.74 collar that was in effect until March 30. The Qwest price upticks on at least two of those days - the 28th and 30th - are unusual, according to several experts shown the trading data for those days. "The patterns of day-end trading are one heck of a coincidence," said Frank Birgfeld, a former National Association of Securities Dealers regulator. "I think that further investigation as to whether these were legitimate trades should be conducted." The late-day spikes in Qwest's stock appears to have occurred on at least three days in April as well, when a lower price collar applied to the proposed deal.
