AT&T gives up

[SithSolo1]

http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/19/atandt-abandons-t-mobile-merger-plans/

Ha Ha

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

yay for gsm fragmentation

 

[vshah]

yay competition.

although we could eventually see tmobile fall to another, possibly even less desirable buyer.

 

[Hogan773]

our Democratic government continues to make life better for all of us.......as the others said, YAAAAYYYYY

 

[Belegost]

As a T-Mo customer who had no interest in becoming an ATT customer, I am legitimately pleased.

 

[Deeko]

I wasn't terribly happy with the deal as a consumer...however, I didn't see good reason for it to be blocked. Oh well. Such is life.

 

[ponyo]

I'm shocked. I was completely wrong. I was sure AT&T had already bribed the regulators and politicians and the deal would go through with some modification.

 

[JACKHAMMER]

As a T-Mo customer who had no interest in becoming an ATT customer, I am legitimately pleased.

x2.

 

[shortylickens]

X3

 

[Fox5]

Awesome, the most customer friendly company gets to stay around! Hopefully they remain cheap and lenient! And with the ~$4 billion they're getting from ATT, it should ease up any financial issues they may have been having.

 

[pm]

I was completely opposed to the merger on the basis that this country needs more carriers, not fewer. I travel internationally a fair bit and having been around, I think the US (and Canada) have two of the worst cell phone systems that I've seen in terms of what you get for what you pay for, particularly in terms of text messages and data (voice actually isn't too bad). You could say that it's because of the size of the country, but other large countries like Russia and Australia have less expensive data, texting and voice plans and prepaid than the US.

The first time that I remember thinking that we already have too few carriers in the US was when Sprint raised it's per-message texting rate from $0.10 per message to $0.20 per message several years ago... and then within days or weeks AT&T and Verizon did the same, and soon after T-Mobile did as well. So the question is, what caused this rate increase, and why did all of the other carriers feel justified in increasing their rates as well. In the airline industry, I see airlines do this - they will all raise rates - and then you'll see one carrier say "no, we are sticking to our current pricing" and the other airlines with back down on their rate increase or not. To me, this is something closer to a free market system. But with cell phones, if one carrier decides that the minimum number of minutes on their plan is going up from $30/month for 300 minutes to $40/month for is 400 minutes, then all of the others change so that their plans match... with the occasional exception of T-Mobile.

Price out a phone, data and texting plan and you will see that there is very little difference between the carriers and that this difference has not really changed over time - when one raises rates, the other do too. I think we need two or three more nationwide cell phone carriers, instead of one less.

In particular, T-Mobile is one of the better prepaid and bring-you-own-phone vendors. You can get an calling and unlimited texting plan from them for $15/month - that's it... $15 total and you can get you teenager a phone without having to add them to your plan and worry about them blowing your bill away because they are silly.

To me, the net benifit of an AT&T/T-Mobile merger was in favor of AT&T as a company. They gain T-Mobile's customers and towers, they gain T-Mobile's spectrum, on a system that is fairly compatible with their own. And for this, they pay an amount that is really not too expensive compared to what these things are separately. From a customer's perspective, the customers gets better service, but we lose a competitor to keep prices down.

I personally thought that it was a net loss from the consumer's perspective, and I wrote several letters to my senators, and my congressional representative. I attended a Q&A session with my congressperson and asked them about the merger. I wrote a comment letter of opposition to the FCC, and I wrote letters to the editors, signed petitions, and was quoted in the Denver Post. I think this is a good thing and I can't think of any other carrier or company that would be a bad merger for T-Mobile except for Verizon and so I look forward to seeing what happens next with a feeling that anything that happens is likely to be better for T-Mobile customers, and the US cell phone market, than AT&T and T-Mobile combined.

 

[zinfamous]

I'm shocked. I was completely wrong. I was sure AT&T had already bribed the regulators and politicians and the deal would go through with some modification.

Only the oil oligarchs have that kind of capital.

 

[Bateluer]

Awesome, the most customer friendly company gets to stay around! Hopefully they remain cheap and lenient! And with the ~$4 billion they're getting from ATT, it should ease up any financial issues they may have been having.

Did TMO get that money? I thought it was paid to Duetche Telecom?

 

[pm]

The money went to Deutsche Telecom.

I saw this this morning:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/20/us-deutschetelekom-idUSTRE7BJ0LW20111220

While Deutsche Telekom is now walking away with a $6 billion breakup package, its chief executive Rene Obermann has lost a lot of time and will now have to invest in the U.S. market or find a new way to exit the country, an option analysts regard as unlikely.

T-Mobile USA "is just crying out for a merger with Sprint. That's the only long-term solution for Deutsche Telekom," Will Draper, head of telecoms research at Espirito Santo, said.

 

[Hogan773]

I was completely opposed to the merger on the basis that this country needs more carriers, not fewer. I travel internationally a fair bit and having been around, I think the US (and Canada) have two of the worst cell phone systems that I've seen in terms of what you get for what you pay for, particularly in terms of text messages and data (voice actually isn't too bad). You could say that it's because of the size of the country, but other large countries like Russia and Australia have less expensive data, texting and voice plans and prepaid than the US.

The first time that I remember thinking that we already have too few carriers in the US was when Sprint raised it's per-message texting rate from $0.10 per message to $0.20 per message several years ago... and then within days or weeks AT&T and Verizon did the same, and soon after T-Mobile did as well. So the question is, what caused this rate increase, and why did all of the other carriers feel justified in increasing their rates as well. In the airline industry, I see airlines do this - they will all raise rates - and then you'll see one carrier say "no, we are sticking to our current pricing" and the other airlines with back down on their rate increase or not. To me, this is something closer to a free market system. But with cell phones, if one carrier decides that the minimum number of minutes on their plan is going up from $30/month for 300 minutes to $40/month for is 400 minutes, then all of the others change so that their plans match... with the occasional exception of T-Mobile.

Price out a phone, data and texting plan and you will see that there is very little difference between the carriers and that this difference has not really changed over time - when one raises rates, the other do too. I think we need two or three more nationwide cell phone carriers, instead of one less.

In particular, T-Mobile is one of the better prepaid and bring-you-own-phone vendors. You can get an calling and unlimited texting plan from them for $15/month - that's it... $15 total and you can get you teenager a phone without having to add them to your plan and worry about them blowing your bill away because they are silly.

To me, the net benifit of an AT&T/T-Mobile merger was in favor of AT&T as a company. They gain T-Mobile's customers and towers, they gain T-Mobile's spectrum, on a system that is fairly compatible with their own. And for this, they pay an amount that is really not too expensive compared to what these things are separately. From a customer's perspective, the customers gets better service, but we lose a competitor to keep prices down.

I personally thought that it was a net loss from the consumer's perspective, and I wrote several letters to my senators, and my congressional representative. I attended a Q&A session with my congressperson and asked them about the merger. I wrote a comment letter of opposition to the FCC, and I wrote letters to the editors, signed petitions, and was quoted in the Denver Post. I think this is a good thing and I can't think of any other carrier or company that would be a bad merger for T-Mobile except for Verizon and so I look forward to seeing what happens next with a feeling that anything that happens is likely to be better for T-Mobile customers, and the US cell phone market, than AT&T and T-Mobile combined.

I was chatting with a friend from Europe and he said that he pays something like $12 per month for phone/data service. Granted he has to buy the smartphone outright, but I would happily pay $600 for a phone if I could pay $12 per month rather than $70 per month under a forced 2 year contract!

 

[SunnyD]

So my confusion here is AT&T wanted T-Mo basically for spectrum, with the added bonus of a bit of major metropolitan infrastructure.

What AT&T ends up with is losing spectrum? (part of the breakup deal was that AT&T would give DT some spectrum + cash & a roaming agreement)

I don't understand why AT&T even wrote their purchase agreement in the way it did. None of it makes sense.

 

[Hogan773]

So my confusion here is AT&T wanted T-Mo basically for spectrum, with the added bonus of a bit of major metropolitan infrastructure.

What AT&T ends up with is losing spectrum? (part of the breakup deal was that AT&T would give DT some spectrum + cash & a roaming agreement)

I don't understand why AT&T even wrote their purchase agreement in the way it did. None of it makes sense.

They made a big bet and lost.........they obviously didn't think there was as much risk that they couldn't get it through FTC.

 

[Skott]

Personally, I'm glad ATT didn't get T-mobile but I'm curious how this failed attempt effects T-mobile. Didn't Deutsche Telecom say they were not going to put any more money or resources into T-mobile? Or were they saying that because of the impending buy? My question now is basically will Deutsche Telecom keep putting resources into T-mobile? You know, build the base and upgrade the system like they were before the announced sale? I just hope this doesn't hurt T-mobile in the future.

 

[sciwizam]

Looking at recent Verizon deals with the cable companies to buy up their unused spectrum for about the same price AT&T paid to DT, Verizon's execs must be:

 

[alent1234]

So my confusion here is AT&T wanted T-Mo basically for spectrum, with the added bonus of a bit of major metropolitan infrastructure.

What AT&T ends up with is losing spectrum? (part of the breakup deal was that AT&T would give DT some spectrum + cash & a roaming agreement)

I don't understand why AT&T even wrote their purchase agreement in the way it did. None of it makes sense.

they still have to pay up. part of the agreement is that t-mo has to keep their revenue and profit numbers up. after the 4S being sold out it will probably come out next year that t-mo lost customers and at&t won't have to pay anything or very little.

t-mo didn't introduce the data heavy/voice lite plans for no reason.

 

[alent1234]

I was chatting with a friend from Europe and he said that he pays something like $12 per month for phone/data service. Granted he has to buy the smartphone outright, but I would happily pay $600 for a phone if I could pay $12 per month rather than $70 per month under a forced 2 year contract!

maybe for single people but if you're buying a phone for yourself and kids no one in their right mind will spend $2000 outright for a few smartphones

 

[zinfamous]

maybe for single people but if you're buying a phone for yourself and kids no one in their right mind will spend $2000 outright for a few smartphones

why would you spend so much money on a ridiculously expensive smartphone for the kids? At best, they should always get your hand-me-down, or a very meager dumb phone that does voice/text/music.

 

[alent1234]

for a few years it was blackberries but with the 3GS being free on contract it's a killer deal for a kids smartphone

and since it's a family plan it's not like you have to pay $80 times 4 phones if you have 2 kids. all carriers have decent family plan savings

why would i spend $300 or so for a similar phone but not on contract

 

[Oyeve]

for a few years it was blackberries but with the 3GS being free on contract it's a killer deal for a kids smartphone

and since it's a family plan it's not like you have to pay $80 times 4 phones if you have 2 kids. all carriers have decent family plan savings

why would i spend $300 or so for a similar phone but not on contract

Actually, only tmo has a very good family plan. The others are meh at best.

 

[EightySix Four]

Eh, I don't feel like this deal falling through was in the best interest of the consumers personally. Deutsche Telekom doesn't want to invest anymore money in what is essentially a bargain carrier and is looking to get rid of it for a reason.