backtop


Print 76 comment(s) - last by lexluthermiest.. on Jul 2 at 9:39 PM


Sprint CEO Dan Hesse
Hesse feels he is fighting for Sprint's survival and the industry

The biggest wireless announcement of the year was AT&T's proposed purchase of T-Mobile that would make it the largest carrier in the U.S. While the merger is expected to get the green light by regulators, some in the industry think that the merger is bad for the industry.

Sprint is working hard to get the merger blocked and is pulling out all of the stops to accomplish its mission. Not only does Sprint think that its survival is at stake, but the company wants everyone to believe that the purchase of T-Mobile by AT&T will be disastrous for the industry and consumers. Sprint CEO Dan Hesse is working to find any way possible to block the purchase from having Sprint's own engineers tell AT&T how it could increase its capacity to hiring lobbyists and courting other CEO's to stand against the deal.

Many think that the only thing Sprint can hope for is to force the FCC and other regulators to impose conditions on the purchase that would make it better for Sprint. Sprint CEO Dan Hesse said, "Clearly, purely, we want to win and block the merger. This one poses real risks."

The issue for Sprint as a company is that the merged AT&T/T-Mobile carrier and Verizon could make Sprint unable to compete for new devices and on price, ultimately forcing the company out of business. Hesse has already admitted that Sprint's survival as an independent is in doubt if the purchase goes through.

Hesse continues, "The industry just won’t be as innovative and as dynamic as it has been. It’ll gum up the works when everything has to go through these two big tollbooths, one that’s called AT&T and one that’s called Verizon."

While Sprint and Hesse argue against the deal, AT&T says that the merger would be better for consumers. The purchase would allow AT&T to make more investments in networks and future technologies according to AT&T. AT&T General Counsel Wayne Watts said, "Their arguments about prices going up just defy economic logic. We’ve had wireless transactions multiple times over the last ten years and prices have gone one direction: they’ve gone down."

Many note that while AT&T has promised it will use the purchase to improve wireless broadband access, there is no way to force a company to stand up to promises made. The only way to enforce promises would be for the Justice Department to place conditions on the merger and if they conditions aren't met AT&T could be taken to court.

Many believe that Sprint's concerns are being heard by the decision makers.  Whether or not they are enough to block the sale remains to be seen. The FCC and Congress are grilling AT&T on the purchase looking for any possible downside to the buyout.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Is this guy for real?
By theapparition on 6/28/2011 2:45:19 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
We’ve had wireless transactions multiple times over the last ten years and prices have gone one direction: they’ve gone down."

Seriously? Prices have gone down?

I've never once see a wireless bill go down.

I'd type more if I wasn't laughing hysterically.




RE: Is this guy for real?
By Motoman on 6/28/2011 3:26:30 PM , Rating: 4
Agreed. That is pure stupidity.


RE: Is this guy for real?
By priusone on 6/28/2011 4:34:50 PM , Rating: 5
It makes sense if you don't think about it.


RE: Is this guy for real?
By mcnabney on 6/29/2011 9:46:25 AM , Rating: 1
Verizon and AT&Ts prices are way down. The most obvious point would be an unlimited plan. Verizon was charging $100 for unlimited voice w/o text. Now they charge $70. A 30% drop in price. Also, data plans once cost $80 for an aircard. Now they charge $50 with a far larger and faster network. Prices are being pushed down.


RE: Is this guy for real?
By Nutzo on 6/29/2011 11:07:14 AM , Rating: 3
Unlimited and high-end plans have gotten cheaper, but the lowend limited/pre-paid plans have actually gone up.


RE: Is this guy for real?
By phatboye on 6/29/2011 11:14:52 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah but now they have data caps so the price is going up


RE: Is this guy for real?
By anynigma on 6/30/2011 10:46:43 AM , Rating: 2
The most important point to note here is that Sprint's introduction of its unlimited plan for $69.99 a few years ago is THE catalyst that brought AT&T's and Verizon's unlimited plans out of the stratosphere and down to reasonable levels. I remember seeing the commercials and reading reports on the rumor sites that they were getting pressure to match Sprint's offer.

This point by it self makes it painfully obvious to me why we need Sprint to continue its small but critical role in the competitive landscape of wireless providers.


RE: Is this guy for real?
By Kougar on 7/2/2011 9:14:24 AM , Rating: 2
I'm glad you pointed that out. Lets not forget why prices did drop as they did... it certainly wasn't because AT&T or Verizon desired to have lower profit margins.


RE: Is this guy for real?
By Dean364 on 6/29/2011 12:29:23 PM , Rating: 2
Well everything sounds bad if you remember it.


RE: Is this guy for real?
By Wererat on 6/28/2011 5:04:32 PM , Rating: 5
The CARRIERS' costs have gone down. Nobody said OUR costs have gone down.


RE: Is this guy for real?
By ElderTech on 6/28/2011 11:11:49 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on your situation. For individuals on a two year plan with the major carriers, for the same service, mostly no. But for families, definitely yes. The ability to add additional phones for $10, to share minutes on a plan, and in many cases to roll over unused minutes, has meant a lower cost every month. And if you consider the Walmart and other low cost plans, the cost to everyone is lower in almost all cases. Just not the cutting edge hardware available.


RE: Is this guy for real?
By tng on 6/29/2011 7:55:22 AM , Rating: 5
Having been with AT&T for a long time I can say that my first phone was $37/month. After I bought a new phone, that went up to $47/month, the next time it went to $62. Same service, virtually identical plans each time.

I can see where it might go up a little because everything does, but I have a very basic plan with a very basic phone, so tell me again how much this will save me? AT&T really has pushed the limits on this. Why should I believe them now?


RE: Is this guy for real?
By fishman on 6/29/2011 11:20:19 AM , Rating: 3
We have a plan from 2004 for two phones with 450 prime time minutes for $53/month including taxes, etc. No way could I get anything like this for less than an additional $20/month.


RE: Is this guy for real?
By JediJeb on 6/29/2011 6:37:51 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly why I am still using my V3 and on the same plan I have had since 2005.

Same thing with DirecTV, I just looked today, I can change my plan from the one I have now(which no longer actually exists) to a new one that is $0.50 higher per month, but I would be gaining a bunch of the "radio music" stations and losing several good stations I currently have so I will stick with what I have until they force me to change.

All communications companies operate the same way. They tell you the next new tech will save a ton of money, but if it does they raise your price and pocket the extra savings, win-win for the companies, not the consumers.


RE: Is this guy for real?
By Dr of crap on 6/29/2011 8:40:23 AM , Rating: 3
I can't speak to your situation or to every plan, but the only way that costs go down is with COMPETITION. T-Moblie's low prices and Sprints all in plan forced the others to offer such as well.

How you could think that plan costs would go down if the competition wasn't there is crazy.

But as posted above it's fine if you don't think about it.


I fail to see...
By MrBlastman on 6/28/2011 1:41:08 PM , Rating: 5
The nuclear option here. Maybe my reading comprehension fails me this time?




RE: I fail to see...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/28/2011 1:51:30 PM , Rating: 1
It was more in reference to the source article than politically motivated:

quote:
This is where Hesse retreats to map out “nukes” in red, blue and green ink, lately his tactics for stopping AT&T Inc. (T)’s proposed takeover of T-Mobile USA.


RE: I fail to see...
By Lord 666 on 6/28/2011 3:33:26 PM , Rating: 4
Poor choice of words. I too read it and was dissappointed not to see a true "poison-pill" option or some other end-all tactic.

At least this article wasn't plagerized and copied word for word.


RE: I fail to see...
By Alexvrb on 6/28/2011 8:44:13 PM , Rating: 2
Where's Axe Cop when you need him?


RE: I fail to see...
By semiconshawn on 6/28/2011 4:15:15 PM , Rating: 3
An article titled like this and yet says....Nothing. Slow news days I guess.


Pot calling the kettle black
By Rogeraususa on 6/28/2011 2:48:37 PM , Rating: 3
I think this merger needs to be blocked to avoid the "Ma-Bell" scenario that the government dissolved a few decades back. However, Sprint is no angel and I still recall the notorious behavior of that company in the 1990's where you couldn't cancel a Sprint landline account to save your life.

It's simply time to go back 10-15 years in time and get a normal cell phone plan for a low double-digit $cost$ per month... *sigh*




RE: Pot calling the kettle black
By Targon on 6/28/2011 4:25:11 PM , Rating: 2
Verizon has scooped up smaller players over the years to become the largest local telco in the USA. As a result, they also have been using the land and equipment from the local telcom business to boost the strength of the cell phone network.

Considering that Verizon gets money from the government to "compensate for maintaining the landline network", I argue that if you want to complain about "ma Bell", Verizon has more claim to that title than AT&T does at this point in time. They get government aid for what ends up strengthening their cellular network, so why not let AT&T buy T-mobile?


RE: Pot calling the kettle black
By mcnabney on 6/29/2011 9:52:24 AM , Rating: 2
You haven't been paying attention.

Verizon has been SELLING their landline businesses over the past 5-10 years. They operate landlines in only a few core markets now - the less profitable ones they have sold. Their core investments are landlines/data/FiOS in several large cities and wireless across the nation. Their landline presence probably covers a third of the states that it once did.


RE: Pot calling the kettle black
By Wererat on 6/28/2011 5:06:54 PM , Rating: 2
"It's simply time to go back 10-15 years in time and get a normal cell phone plan for a low double-digit $cost$ per month... *sigh*"

Yep, as soon as the ETF hits a low enough number that's my next move. For the difference in monthly cost, I can afford a wifi-only tablet or other device.


RE: Pot calling the kettle black
By Solandri on 6/28/2011 5:34:42 PM , Rating: 1
My first plan in 1998 was $30/mo for 300 minutes. 9pm - 5am nights and weekends were free. Pretty much everything else - text, data, picture mail, long distance , etc. - cost extra.

The rise in plan prices has been paralleled by a bulking up of plan features. If you really could switch back to a plan from 10-15 years ago, you'd probably be feeling awfully cramped.


"Nuclear option?"
By CZroe on 6/28/2011 9:14:58 PM , Rating: 3
Sprint has opposed this merger all along. I was curious to see what severe "option" they were resorting to that the author fancifully coined as "nuclear." I just read the whole article to see what Sprint did and found nothing except a whole lot of words saying that they oppose it. Duh. What are they doing NOW that prompted this article?

"Sprint is working hard" does not equate to "Sprint is doing something drastic!", which is what "nuclear option" implies.




RE: "Nuclear option?"
By Dr of crap on 6/29/2011 8:44:41 AM , Rating: 2
I agree the titles of so called "news" articles are just writen to that you will at least look at them.

It's almost as if there is some money involved if someone loads the page. So they make the titles wrong so that you'll at least take a look and read a line of two.


logic?
By omnicronx on 6/28/2011 3:37:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Their arguments about prices going up just defy economic logic. We’ve had wireless transactions multiple times over the last ten years and prices have gone one direction: they’ve gone down."
*BS* *Caugh*

As though the wireless industry is not a direct competitor to the wired industry. I would even argue that the wireless industry caused pricing to drop more than the AT&T breakup as the wired user-base is actually shrinking.




Congress is grilling At&t
By atlmann10 on 6/29/2011 12:49:42 AM , Rating: 2
Of course that's after At&T already paid them off.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000...




see what your reps got paid!
By atlmann10 on 6/29/2011 12:51:12 AM , Rating: 2
By mentatstrategy on 6/30/2011 9:13:48 AM , Rating: 2
I am systems administrator for my company, I support approx 100 smart phone devices from blackberry to all flavors of droid, iphone, windows phone's etc. Recently my company made a switch to sprint from verizon - horrible mistake, they promised us the world and delivered none of their promises. From extremely poor coverage to extremely poor business support. Needless to say it hasn't even been a year and we have already switched everything away from sprint back to verizon. Sprint should be put out of business.. there's no room in the cell world for a half baked incompetent company such as sprint




Boycott....
By lexluthermiester on 7/2/2011 9:38:10 PM , Rating: 2
I'm a former AT&T and Sprint user. Former being the key word. Sprint's CS is lacking in oh so many ways. And AT&T's coverage was pathetic then and still is now. T-Mobile has the perfect balance of everything I need. Cricket will be my next diggs if T-Mobile is bought out.

And I'm far from alone in this sentiment. T-Mobile, if you see this, stay independent . It'll be best for you in the long run and better for everyone else.




Meh...
By Myrandex on 6/28/11, Rating: -1
RE: Meh...
By DigitalFreak on 6/28/2011 2:20:08 PM , Rating: 5
I see you've fallen for AT&T's lies about their lack of spectrum.


RE: Meh...
By lexluthermiester on 7/2/2011 9:39:43 PM , Rating: 2
It would appear he has....


RE: Meh...
By GiantPandaMan on 6/28/2011 2:29:16 PM , Rating: 5
I agree with Hess. The rise of huge monopolies through acquisition does and has hurt consumers. Just look at the cable companies and media companies for further examples. It's bad that so few companies can dominate so much of the public space, from newspapers, to tv, to radio, to even how we access the internet.

It goes further than just a threat to consumers, but is also a threat to democracy. Raise a fuss about a company? Now suddenly they can cut off your internet, your phone, your tv, etc. and do it legally. After all, they voluntarily allow you to use their services, why shouldn't they be able to cut you off? Yet, you'll have no alternatives because companies have been allowed to buy up control of so many important aspects of our modern lives. I'm not saying that they've begun to do this, but it's perfectly plausible that eventually companies will. There were reasons why anti-monopoly practices were put into place on both media and communication. Unfortunately they've eroded, big time, from our democracy's heyday in the 50's-80's.


RE: Meh...
By Iaiken on 6/28/2011 3:26:12 PM , Rating: 5
So the consumer gets hurt, the politicians won't care as long as they can legally keep get kick-backs, perks and contributions. The solution is simple, make these illegal, make them care. Good luck trying to get them to take money out of their own pockets.


RE: Meh...
By mcnabney on 6/29/2011 9:58:11 AM , Rating: 1
SCOTUS disagrees with you. It thinks that money is speech and having more money makes your interests more important. It is sad that 'conservatives' took the nation to a place that it has never been before.


RE: Meh...
By Iaiken on 6/28/2011 4:06:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Unfortunately they've eroded, big time, from our democracy's heyday in the 50's-80's.


You mean back when there were literally hundreds of producers of news media all airing and sharing their media? I remember when journalists actually had to dig for scoops instead of just reprinting what was handed to them from the White House.

Not only that, but the consolidation has lead to an expansion of five-way control by individual entities in print, television, radio and internet as well as their means of dispensing them. This also leads to uniformity within each controlling entity. While each is respectively different from each other, this still leads to a loss of diversity in the messages.

In effect, the corporations are creating a media hegemony that is self-protecting in that any possible dissent towards it can simply be deliberately excluded by the media while maintaining plausible deniability of censorship. This is also what makes allowing the creator of the media also be the deliverer of the media (ie, owner of the infrastructure) so dangerous. There is an inherent conflict of interest in this that the government has happily ignored despite it having gotten worse over the last 20 years.

The best example of this is the uniformity of is News Corp and their "message of the day". Regardless of bias, the very act of top-down issuance of what constitutes "news" is absurd and has lead to hilarious relays as each program hands off the hatchet to the next program. A great example was the 24-7/all-media smear-fest where Fox targeted John Edwards. It probably would have found it comical if it hadn't been so terrifying.


RE: Meh...
By semiconshawn on 6/28/2011 4:21:26 PM , Rating: 3
I will say this so as not to feed further into your paranoia....John Edwards is a lying Scum Bag


RE: Meh...
By Iaiken on 6/28/2011 5:17:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
John Edwards is a lying Scum Bag


That's neither here nor there...

The frightening thing was the united front that sprung up at News Corp to hammer away on him 24-7 for everything from serious allegations to the pettiest of reasons.

They all do it, but fox is so straightforward in how they go about it that it's almost shameful that the public tolerates it.


RE: Meh...
By Gzus666 on 6/28/2011 5:31:04 PM , Rating: 3
They don't just tolerate it, they LOVE it.


RE: Meh...
By bupkus on 6/28/2011 10:01:19 PM , Rating: 2
They love it just like they love home video clips showing men getting hit in the groin.

Just follow the lamb's tail in your face. Don't worry about the screams ahead of you, it's just men getting hit in the groin.


RE: Meh...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/28/2011 6:30:39 PM , Rating: 1
You really need to give it up. This is a HUGE story and what Edwards done is not excusable. Fox isn't the first, or last, to tee-up somebody when they get caught like this.

We don't care that he had a mistress or a love child. We care that he spent almost a million dollars of our money on this mess. And a complete host of utterly damning charges that were totally proven.

And here you are worried that the public "tolerates" news stories? How about a public that tolerates this kind of gross abuse of elected positions!? That's what you should be concerned about.

There is a time and place for everything. Your witch hunt of Fox is way misplaced here. As usual.


RE: Meh...
By Hyperion1400 on 6/28/2011 8:08:11 PM , Rating: 3
He is referring to the 2004 Kerry/Edwards campaign, not the current debacle, which is, wholly justified. Or, have you forgotten the term "Swiftboating" already?


RE: Meh...
By Iaiken on 6/28/2011 9:46:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah well, this wouldn't be the first wrong/stupid conclusion Reclaimer has jumped all over while frothing at the mouth.


RE: Meh...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/28/2011 10:12:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Yeah well, this wouldn't be the first wrong/stupid conclusion Reclaimer has jumped all over while frothing at the mouth.


No, the problem is I have a hard time reading your posts in entirety because they're all so much bullshit. Reading comprehension requires something worth comprehending.


RE: Meh...
By Iaiken on 6/29/2011 12:49:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
No, the problem is I have a hard time reading your posts in entirety because they're all so much bullshit.


Likewise! :D


RE: Meh...
By Hyperion1400 on 6/29/2011 3:32:24 PM , Rating: 1
Ah, the TL;DR defense. You know, it usually says more about the person using it, than the person it is intended to insult?


RE: Meh...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/29/2011 7:46:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A great example was the 24-7/all-media smear-fest where Fox targeted John Edwards. It probably would have found it comical if it hadn't been so terrifying.


This is all he said. If you're talking about a specific point in time, maybe you should use a DATE?

Anyone reading this would have assumed the same thing I did, because the Edwards thing is a big CURRENT story.

Again, it's poor writing skills. He was cryptic, vague, and not conveying to the reader the specific point in time we're all supposed to read his mind and infer. In fact if someone has to infer anything in a debate, you have failed.

Maybe he walks around with events back in 2004 fresh in his mind, because he's an anal gasbag, but most of us don't.


RE: Meh...
By Hyperion1400 on 6/29/2011 8:26:19 PM , Rating: 2
Or maybe you should have seen that he was speaking in the past tense and the current Edwards debacle is still very much current?

quote:
In fact if someone has to infer anything in a debate, you have failed. Maybe he walks around with events back in 2004 fresh in his mind, because he's an anal gasbag, but most of us don't.


No, the moment you have to resort to personal attacks instead of sticking to facts is the moment you have failed.


RE: Meh...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/30/2011 2:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
Past tense could have meant he saw Fox doing it yesterday or last week or an hour ago. Why would anyone be meant to assume he was talking about YEARS ago?


RE: Meh...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/28/2011 10:06:52 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't that around the same time that ABC and Dan Rather completely forged documents and knowingly crafted a Bush-bashing story and ran with it? Memogate?

I can think of nothing more prejudicial or corrupt in media than what transpired there. Yet Ilaken continues his oblivious crusade against Fox.


RE: Meh...
By mcnabney on 6/29/2011 10:02:25 AM , Rating: 2
Dan didn't forge anything, but he and his producers didn't do enough to investigage the source of the documents. They just ran with it. Fox does this every day, and later mentions that their source was mistaken - after the damage is done.


RE: Meh...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/29/2011 10:46:28 AM , Rating: 2
Nice try. Rather himself even asserted that, and I quote, "that "the material" had been authenticated by experts retained by CBS." When in fact no such authentication had been done. They knowingly used forged documents, they continued to defend the stories validity TWO WEEKS after the documents authenticity was called into question.

It was a completely manufactured hatchet job from start to finish. No other possible conclusion can objectively be drawn.

To say "Fox does this every day" is a criminal allegation that you're going to have to back up. If they did this every day, we would know about it, people would be fired and lawsuits would be filed.


RE: Meh...
By Nutzo on 6/29/2011 11:11:51 AM , Rating: 2
Ignore the troll, he just can't handle the truth.


RE: Meh...
By inperfectdarkness on 6/28/2011 6:24:41 PM , Rating: 4
how about we regulate that companies cannot merge if the resulting entity has greater than 25% market share?

sure, if a company grows to market-dominance naturally, via internal growth--that's perfectly fine. i'm just thinking that mass-mergers destroy consumer choice.


RE: Meh...
By Hyperion1400 on 6/29/2011 3:42:18 PM , Rating: 3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act

We already have, it's just the FTC &^%$ing ignores it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson-Patman_Act

Yeah, all of these combined make it pretty clear that the merger is illegal; won't stop the "Justice" Department from approving it though!

It's not a true monopoly, but certainly this merger would create serious oligopoly issue?


RE: Meh...
By sorry dog on 6/28/2011 3:03:12 PM , Rating: 3
MAYBE there would be a short/medium term benefit to ATT/T Mobile customers, but there is a very definate downside to all consumers long term.

A duopoly for wireless will not be a good thing, and that's what will happen. In fact, a commonly used tool the Herfindahl index shows an non-competitive market by the FTC own guidelines. So I don't see how the FTC should not be objecting to this merger... oh wait ... there's congressional oversight... never mind ... I'm sure they will protect the interests of the people...


RE: Meh...
By frobizzle on 6/28/2011 3:20:45 PM , Rating: 2
Monopolies or duopolies are simply no good for consumers. If anyone really needs evidence of this, just look at the so-called broadband Internet in this country. In most locales, there is a choice of only one or two providers. And then we wonder why the US (so-called) broadband speeds are among the worst of the civilized countries?

This merger is just a very bad idea for consumers!


Too late for Sprint
By dusteater on 6/28/11, Rating: -1
RE: Too late for Sprint
By Mitch101 on 6/28/2011 2:16:59 PM , Rating: 3
Im on Sprint with a Windows Phone 7 device purchased at a sprint store. Windows Phone 7 can be purchased on their website too. Are you in Canada or something?


RE: Too late for Sprint
By Chadder007 on 6/28/2011 2:25:14 PM , Rating: 2
Umm...they have WebOS and Win7 phones...


RE: Too late for Sprint
By Targon on 6/28/2011 4:29:03 PM , Rating: 2
Sprint dropped WebOS a while back, and has never even gotten the Pre Plus and Pixi Plus to replace the original versions from 2009. Sprint also has not said a peep about plans to offer the Pre 3, so no, Sprint does NOT offer WebOS based devices.

As far as Win7 phones, I'm not sure that I would call those a good offering in the first place.


RE: Too late for Sprint
By badbirdlb on 6/28/2011 2:36:50 PM , Rating: 2
don't do it you will be unhappy....maybe not at first but they will kill your soul!! I had At&t for 14 years, the WORST costumer service on the planet they had my on the hook for everything; home phone, office phone, DSL, cell phone (23 company cells) at lastly TV. I have been with Sprint for three years and the one time I had to call them I got a very nice lady in South Carolina who took very good care of me...went so far as to call me back later on that day to make sure the level 2 tech she passed me on to was able to fix my issues.


RE: Too late for Sprint
By killerroach on 6/28/2011 2:43:22 PM , Rating: 2
If he's on Sprint already, it's not like he can get any worse customer service...

As a current T-Mobile customer, I'm not happy about the merger, but Deutsche Telekom doesn't seem to want to be in the US market anymore. The way I see it, either the FCC and FTC approve the merger or Deutsche Telekom pulls out completely and AT&T buys up the remaining assets (towers, contracts, and spectrum). Considering the two potential paths, I think the merger is the lesser of two evils.


RE: Too late for Sprint
By Solandri on 6/28/2011 5:44:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If he's on Sprint already, it's not like he can get any worse customer service...

I agree Sprint used to have the worst customer service, but they've made a lot of progress towards improving it. In the latest Consumer Reports service ratings, Sprint actually ranked #2 in customer service behind U.S. Cellular, just ahead of Verizon at #3. T-Mobile was #4. AT&T was dead last, though I suspect most of that had to do with grumpy iPhone customers.

The overall rankings (device + service + customer service) were the same with Sprint and Verizon switching places.


RE: Too late for Sprint
By Dr of crap on 6/29/2011 8:54:56 AM , Rating: 2
I don't understand how you guys can rate a cell service with how the customer service of the carrier is.

Do you call customer service THAT much?

I have Sprint, have called customer service a few times, not any worse or better than any other customer serivce I've called. AND I wouldn't drop my cell serivce just BECAUSE I had a rep not treat me like a god.

It's cell phone service they provide not customer service. They aren't in charge of fixing my car, in which I'd have a problem if they weren't really good!


RE: Too late for Sprint
By ImEmmittSmith on 6/28/2011 3:14:53 PM , Rating: 2
I totally disagree, I have been with AT&T(SWB and Cingular) since the early 1990's and have not had a problem with them. I live in the Dallas area and do get a few dropped calls now and then since I moved to the iPhone, but overall my experience has been very good. I have never had an issue with their Customer Service either, they have always been easy to work with. But, with all the AT&T hate that shows up here, maybe I am one of the lucky few!
But, I would definitely vote against the merger/takeover myself because it gives us less choices and reduces competition. Plus, I like the girl in the T-Mobile commercials!!


RE: Too late for Sprint
By realist on 6/28/2011 3:23:21 PM , Rating: 2
AT&T + T-mobile

Sprint should partner up with Verizon. 2 major guys, It'll be like Coca Cola vs Pepsi.


RE: Too late for Sprint
By Wererat on 6/28/2011 5:08:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, 'cause a duopoly is serving us SO well in the political arena...


RE: Too late for Sprint
By cerx on 6/28/2011 5:38:30 PM , Rating: 2
We can have a duopoly in soft drinks because it is a lot easier for a drink company to pop up (7-up, Dr. Pepper, etc.) than a new cell provider. If we fall to 2 providers, with all the upfront costs of securing spectrum and building towers we'll never be able to add a 3rd.


RE: Too late for Sprint
By Etsp on 6/28/2011 10:13:07 PM , Rating: 2
That doesn't make any sense. Duopolies and Monopolies naturally occur BECAUSE of the high barrier to entry, not in spite of it. Intel and AMD as an example, Nvidia and AMD (because they bought ATI) as another.


RE: Too late for Sprint
By sorry dog on 6/29/2011 9:06:18 AM , Rating: 2
The difference between processors and cell service is how often does the average person go processor shopping? Once every couple of years whereas wireless providers are ongoing and a much greater part of our lives. I don't recall ever having to give my social to AMD or Intel. But when it comes down to two then it will be much easier for those two to get together on policies that will make it easier for them to do business...without regard for our privacy and consumer rights...and then we only have the government to protect us...and that's working so well right now.

...and anyway it's quite arguable that the processor duopoly has stagnated processor innovation quite a bit at times...


RE: Too late for Sprint
By bigboxes on 6/29/2011 10:54:02 AM , Rating: 2
I'm smack in the middle of DFW and while AT&T has great data service their calls drop all the time. It happens so frequently it's a running joke among my friends, both AT&T subscribers and others. Don't take it personally that AT&T fails at what it needs to succeed most in (phone calls).


RE: Too late for Sprint
By bigboxes on 6/29/2011 11:01:02 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention you can tell when someone is on AT&T as the call quality (when it's not dropping) is not clear. You get on Verizon or Sprint and it's crystal clear clarity. Sometimes I wish I wasn't locked into my contract, but we have our home phone and satellite bundled with our cell service. I hope Sprint survives because they don't look too bad.


"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki