STOP THE MERGER WITH Tmobile

And what way is this affecting Verizon Wireless subscribers??

 

Telecom: Good question. This poster is hitting as many forums (regardless of the focus) as possible. I thought it was odd that his post-count is zero. I sent note asking it be considered for removal.

That aside, the question is coming up on every wireless-focus website. It is a hotly disputed issue. Personally, I don't buy the "there won't be any competition" argument. T-Mobile was the number 4 company in the USA. The biggest competitors still remain. That ATT would be the only GSM carrier is really a stupid debate seeing as it won't be long before both ATT & Verizon change to LTE (and there is talk of Sprint changing from WiMax to LTE). So the broadcast technology is really a weak platform for a reason to prevent a merger.

People smell anti-competition and monopolies lurking under every rock and in every pond of water. Ambulance-chasing lawyers love to trail every wreck. Such is the world we live in. In my opinion, current GSM users can only benefit from the merger. But many will adamantly disagree.

 

My attitude has changed since the proposed acquisition was announced. I don't like AT&T at all, but the reality is that DT has chosen to get out of the US market. It will happen. If it doesn't happen with AT&T it will happen with somebody. The truth is that the marriage with AT&T makes the most sense since they also have GSM technology and T-Mobile's upgrade path includes LTE which is what AT&T will be deploying. Believe me I'm not looking forward to sub-par customer service and higher prices which is what T-Mobile customers will get with an acquisition by T. I am realistic that an acquisition by AT&T will probably happen despite regulatory review.

 

The OP posted this in each of the four major carrier forums here. I kept only this one. Normally all posts would be deleted in cases like this, and I'm not surprised this was posted on other forum sites as well. I left it because it does link to the legitimate FCC site. If it had linked anywhere else, it wouldn't still be here.

This is a very rare instance where a "spam" post is left. All his other posts were deleted (and for some reason this caused his post count to be "0", which is a problem we've been experiencing on the site for a while and Joe is aware of it).

If people want to comment on this merger via the FCC site in the link, they should have the option to do so.

Other than that, the original post would have been removed and the user banned for spamming.

 

@Telecom: It is hard for me to compare. Except for a very short time with Verizon, in which I discovered numerous billing errors adding up to substantial overcharges, I have always been an AT&T customer. I started with them in 1994 (when it was the old ATT) when i got a job with a hospital DP dept on graveyard shift. Then, when I got hired by PacBell in 1997, I did not change to whatever that company was (I think it was actually absorbed by Verizon). Then when SBC bought PacBell and the Cingular product was branded, I still stayed with the old ATT. Finally, SBC swallowed its parent company whole. Thus I finally ended up with the new ATT.

Throughout all of that, I have always had excellent service. Just once I called 411 and got 3 employees right in a row that did not perform their duties as outlined by corporate policy. I asked to speak to a 1st-level and voiced my concerned about the image we are carrying to the customer. The following day I was called by a 2nd level that "handled" the issue, reprimanding those involved.

But customer service, technical support, and radio availability have always been excellent for me. Truthfully, I think many of the complaints that are put on boards are by those whose interpersonal skills are lacking. I have noticed a lot lately, especially when those who do have good service come to ATT's defense and the OP starts trashing that person as well. The sad fact of the matter is that we truly are living in the time that the apostle Paul wrote Timothy about, saying that people would be fierce, without love of goodness, headstrong, not open to any agreement.

One recent post I read, the lady readily admitted she bought the phone from a 3-party retailer. But insisted it was ATT's fault because the retailer wouldn't give her a new phone. The phone was damaged, but of course it wasn't her fault. Amazing how self-important people can be.

 

I doubt T-Mobile can survive after this anyways. They were already having a bad quarter, and the announcement hurt more even though it was near the end of March. Q2 will probably be devastating.

At this point, even if the merger fails regulatory review, AT&T's penalty will be worth the damage it will have caused against its only major GSM competitor. DT will probably part out the pieces to all the carriers. Handsets for UMTS on 1700AWS will go away, freeing manufacturing and supply for AT&T's models, and giving AT&T more buying power.

Despite the issues, I think a Sprint/T-Mobile merger would have been better for the industry in the long-term. Rebanding was the main issue with Sprint/Nextel, not just the differing technologies. Sprintmobile could have been a successful value carrier tucked in between AT&T/VZW in 5 years.

So, if you believe that T-Mobile is doomed no matter what, then regulatory approval is more likely, because disapproving the merger would cost DT many billions of dollars and won't save T-Mobile. However, if it IS blocked, Sprint stands to come out ahead if they can pick up the most pieces.

 

Personally, IMHO, TMO would have been too much for Sprint to digest. To add GSM to the multiple fragmented networks they're already running? Lemme see, just off the top of my head there's CDMA, WiMax, iDEN, and LTE, then throw on GSM and WCDMA? They're just now getting a handle on getting customers off iDEN from the Nextel merger.

As an AT&T customer, I only see benefit. I'm already on a grandfathered data plan, so I'm protected from any possible rate hikes. I see slightly expanded coverage, and more bandwidth for data. Current TMO customers will experience greatly increased coverage, so this is of benefit to them as well.

 

The word is internally AT&T is working to reduce grandfathered plans, which is the primary issue. A lot of it is FUD from the Blue customers being forced to migrate, but some of the wording and responses suggests that AT&T will be aggressively reducing features to people on legacy plans. Tactics include preventing coverage gains in new areas without a current plan, no 4G speeds with a legacy 3G plan, and so on. Despite the congressional inquiry, I think AT&T's wording has been soft on that.

The secondary issue is price competition. AT&T's ETF is already high, and without another GSM provider, the ETF is effectively higher because you'll have to buy new handsets. If the cost of leaving is higher, AT&T can also raise the cost of staying. Things like A-list are directly attributable to competition from T-Mobile

The beginning of that merger was a mess, and I don't want to say Hesse saved it, but it does seem like they are finally getting a handle on it. Rebanding imposed huge complications, stubbornness of Nextel customers, the failure of QChat, and the different goals of Sprint and Nextel all conspired to make that a difficult merger.

Times are different now, and I think the cultures of T-Mobile and Sprint would be more compatible. There would have been a LOT more usable spectrum involved in that merger. With the Sprint Nextel merger there was LESS spectrum because of rebanding issues.

My main point though is that a Sprint T-Mobile merger would have been better for the INDUSTRY. A hardcore determined merger with a 5 year migration plan knowing that proper execution is the only way to stay alive could have put the combined company in a good position to compete head-to-head-to-head with the Bell Sisters.

 

I don't disagree with this, but you effectively have the same constraints already on the CDMA side. Sprint won't activate any handset other than one that is in their ESN database. So a Verizon cusotmer cannot take their phone to Sprint. Verizon used to permit it, but I don't think they do any longer.

 

I am on a current orange voice plan, and a grandfathered orange data plan (Smartphone Connect Unlimited $19.99) For the time being, they're leaving orange customers alone in their quest to get the last blue customers integrated. I know eventually they'll try to push me off the data plan, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

If you-all (and I'm not even Texan!) haven't visited the ATT Facebook page, you ought to. Its a laugh a minute. ATT is getting its bottom towed over hot coals with just about every discussion thread. I never knew so many people hated them. Jay, I also have had excellent service with them but it seems their customer service is really lacking in many areas. Then, ATT has this rather annoying habit of remaining silent on things that people legitimately want answers to.

Their Facebook page is an attempt (and a weak one at that) to put a better face on. But its manned by sales staff, not people that can actually address the issues.

I get the impression that the FCC and DOJ sense the public disgust & will put on quite a show for the public making it look like they (the agencies) are truly concerned about the public's concerns. Then after all the egg throwing and hand wringing they will finally approve it. I doubt it will be exactly what anyone originally asked for, but the resulting "concessions" will keep the public from stoning their representatives. :lmao:

As far as data plans... From what I've observed about capping both in wireless data and in DSL (and rumors about U-Verse), I expect that ATT will at sometime down the road squash those grand-fathered plans. They'll look at the percentage of potential loss in a year or two and notice that a minor percentage still have it. They will reason that losing "X" number of subscribers is "the cost of doing business." I've seen it before.

 

Ok i dont know about any of the rest of you, but i dont see any thing that can legally stop this. There is no monopoly, its not even a duopoly like everyone keeps saying, there are dozens of cell providers out there. Personally, i am all for it, think about this people, Verizon and Alltel were both two of the biggest cell providers, but there was no dispute over that. But now that Verizon is number 1, they refuse to allow any other company to be bigger then them, so verizon is just being childish and putting fear into peoples eyes so they will disagree with it. Also, HOW WILL THIS INCREASE PRICES?! ok instead of haveing a bunch of smaller companies that basically each have their own area, why not two big one that cover the same territory? they will have to compete with eachother on not only technology but price as well, i can see the technology rapidly improving and the price dropping. The way i see it duopoly is GOOD, but monopoly is BAD. but monopoly is in the distant future and because of US laws cnnot ever happen. so everyone opposed, where were you during the verizon and alltel merger? Was it not the same situation? And i know what you are going to say, sprint is disputing it too. Well duh! sprint was going to buy t-mobile but didnt have the funds too. Sprint is just pissed off that ATT can afford it and is such a better success. Sprint has always been stupid with money and they pretty much need tmobile or they wont survive, they cant afford to build out otherwise. I can guarentee you all, if ATT doesnt get TMobile, Verizon and Sprint will try and buy it. TMobile just wants out and this is the best way to do so.
And these are just my opinions so feel free to say as you wish.