Just so I understand your point… the issue isn’t Tmoble going away and consumers losing another choice.. it’s the fact they’re merging with ATT. If they ended up with another company like Sprint, that would be ok? Do you dislike ATT for some reason and want it to fail? If Verizon had picked them up would you oppose it? What about a company like Microsoft or Google that have a history of buying their way into markets to undercut everyone.. would that have been better? I’m really not trying to pick a fight, just trying to understand the issue with ATT picking them up. I have ATT and don’t really see the issue with them. To be honest, as far as I’m concerned as it’ll only increase my service I support the merger. Though as I said, I may be missing something.
First, I don't really have anything against AT&T - they are currently my wireless carrier for my wife and I. I don't want them to fail, and, quite the opposite, I would welcome improved call quality and network coverage.
But I don't think AT&T is going to fail if they don't acquire T-Mobile either. I think acquiring T-Mobile would be a big win for AT&T, but I don't think they are doomed if the merger doesn't go through. So it's not - in my mind anyway - an either/or situation. If they don't acquire T-Mobile, then they will continue to build out their network, deal with lots of NIMBY situations for towers, and will gradually improve coverage because that's the way the business works.
Also, I agree with you and AT&T that their service quality and coverage will increase as a result of the merger. So as an AT&T customer, the merger is likely to be a good thing for me personally. And I said the same thing to the Denver Post guy in the interview, but those comments didn't get published.
So, I am primarily opposed to the merger because I don't think there's enough competition in the US wireless market. Additionally if AT&T is allowed to acquire T-Mobile, then I see no reason why the FCC would oppose Verizon acquiring Sprint. So in a matter of several years, we could move from having four carriers to merely having two carriers.
Specifically with regards to competition, T-Mobile is one of the best choices for Prepaid wireless and AT&T not-so-much. If AT&T merges with T-Mobile, then I believe one of the first victims in my mind will be the prepaid customers - who don't have a contract so it makes it particularly easy. There are two things that I can point to specifically that makes me feel like there's not enough competition: data and text messaging.
For data, from my perspective the carriers have the wireless market divided into voice for prepaid and data for post-paid. Prepaid is less lucractive than post-paid, so they essentially have the market divided down into cheap voice plans, and expensive data plans. And that's how they want it because that helps maximize profits. Good for carriers, bad for consumers. The two best carriers for prepaid data are Boost Mobile (ie. Sprint) and T-Mobile - and it's not a coincidence that the two smaller carriers offer better data plans than their larger bretheren. I see data as being the thing that most threatens carrier profits because of VOIP, free texting, Google Voice and others. Even Sprint and T-Mobile move carefully with the "Pandora's box" that is high-bandwidth data. Reducing the carriers consolidates choices, which will mean less likelihood of cheap prepaid data plans any time soon.
The other obvious (to me anyway), area where you can see the stifling effects of a lack of competition are texting plans. Texts should be free. They cost the carriers basically nothing. It's like $0.0001/message, worst case, for a carrier to send a text. In Europe and a lot of Asian countries, unlimited texting is virtually ubiqituous. But here in the states, when Sprint raised it's per message rates from $0.10/message to $0.20/message, the other three carriers followed within weeks. So why did they double prices? Did their raw materials increase in prices? Did electrons suddenly become more expesnive? No, they did it because they could. With anything else if you double rates every one would go crazy, but with wireless the bulk of people were already paying $5-10/month for 500+ texts, so it was mostly a non-issue. But it forced those without plans to move to a texting plan... which was great for the carriers. They get to charge you $5-10/month more for something that is essentially free for them. If there had been real, true competition, most of the carriers would have raised prices, but one carrier wouldn't have, and would have had TV ads talking about their cheap texting... but instead the carriers all tacitly worked together to improve their margins. T-Mobile prepaid offers an unlimited texting plan ($0.10/min calls, unlimited texts) for $15/month. Again, it's no coincidence that the smallest carrier has the best texting plan.
From my perspective, fewer carriers will result in improved coverage and service, but at the price of reduced choice and higher prices. I personally believe that this increased consolidation will be particularly costly in the area of wireless data by moving it to a "premiere" service which can only be added to plans and isn't an "à la carte" option. Since wireless data is the most exciting and fastest moving portion of the technology industry right now, I think lots of competition in this area is a good thing, and a reduction in competing carriers would stifle invovation and increase prices.
Facebook
Twitter