backtop


Print 48 comment(s) - last by Gyres01.. on Jul 25 at 11:11 AM


  (Source: TechnicalJones)
AT&T fires back, saying politicians love the deal

The telecommunication industry’s bid to continue its consolidation hit a roadblock on Wednesday when the U.S. Senate's antitrust committee ruled against AT&T Inc.'s (T) proposed $39B USD acquisition of Deutsche Telekom AG's (ETR:DTE) T-Mobile USA.  The issue was not voted on by the whole Senate and the committee has no real power to enforce its suggestion; however, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) often heavily consider the Senate committee's recommendation in such matters.

I. Senate Committee Concludes Merger Would Hurt Market

Sprint Nextel Corp. (S), the U.S. mobile phone industry's third largest carrier, has been rallying against the merger which would leave only two companies -- AT&T and Verizon Wireless (VZ) controlling over 80 percent of America's phone subscribers.  Sprint says the merger would destroy competition on the market and "stifle innovation."

Senator Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.), chairman of the antitrust committee, stated, "I have concluded that this acquisition, if permitted to proceed, would likely cause substantial harm to competition and consumers, would be contrary to antitrust law and not in the public interest, and therefore should be blocked by your agencies."

The announcement comes shortly after high-ranking members of the U.S. House of Representatives expressed doubts of their own.  Representative Anna Eshoo (D-Calif., 14th District), chairwoman of the House Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich., 14th District), and Congressman Edward Markey (D-Mass., 7th District) wrote a letter to the DOJ and FCC complaining about the possible merger.

They write, "We believe that AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile would be a troubling backward step in federal public policy–a retrenchment from nearly two decades of promoting competition and open markets to acceptance of a duopoly in the wireless marketplace. Such industry consolidation could reduce competition and increase consumer costs at a time our country can least afford it."

II. AT&T's Supporters, Including Tea Party Members Fire Back

The criticism ostensibly came as a shock to AT&T, who claims to have thought the merger to be on the fast track for a March 2012 approval.  AT&T claims that the merger will allow it to deliver "net job growth" to the nation and improve signal quality and coverage.

AT&T released a response to the U.S. Senate committee, commenting:

We respect Senator Kohl. However, we feel his view is inconsistent with antitrust law, is shared by few others, and ignores the many positive benefits and numerous supporters of the transaction. This is a decision that will be made by the Department of Justice and the FCC under applicable law and after a full and fair examination of the facts. We continue to believe those reviews will result in approval of this transaction.

AT&T claims the merger is supported by 26 governors, 76 (of the 193) Democratic members of congress, 72 mayors, and unions that represent 20 million members.

It also pointed to a statement by Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), who opined, "The mobile phone market is a critical component of our nation’s economy and the proposed merger between AT&T and T-Mobile deserves careful review. In my view, the merger has the potential to provide significant network efficiencies that may help alleviate capacity constraints, enable enhanced service quality, and facilitate expansion of a 4G LTE nationwide network, which would in turn create opportunities for handset innovation and continued development of data-rich applications."

AT&T donated $377,500 in direct donations to Sen. Lee and his Tea Party colleagues in Congress this last year.  

Verizon also donated directly to Sen. Lee's election campaign and fellow Tea Party members in the Senate.  Verizon has declined to officially support or oppose the merger, with chief executive Dan Mead saying he was "not concerned" about the possibility.  Some analysts believe that Verizon wants the merger, as it could gain subscribers during the distracting and cumbersome business melding process.

Such donations are likely to play a bigger role in politicians’ opinions in coming issues after a January narrow 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overturned two previous decisions, which had placed limitations on corporate cash funneling to federal politicians.  Many believe this will lead to corporations "buying" the laws that they want, and politicians who refuse to cooperate being run out of Washington by candidates with more well lined pockets.





Comments     Threshold


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

Hmmmmm
By karielash on 7/21/2011 10:29:01 AM , Rating: 4
So the people they have bribed love the idea, the people they haven't bribed yet are not happy with it....




RE: Hmmmmm
By Gzus666 on 7/21/2011 10:38:30 AM , Rating: 3
Precisely. But remember, they will make jobs in their new job factory that they make when they aquire T-mobile. That is the new "think of the children" for businesses, "this will make jobs".


RE: Hmmmmm
By cjohnson2136 on 7/21/2011 10:44:02 AM , Rating: 4
They will make jobs are laying off T-Mobile employees ending with a net result of 50% less jobs :)


RE: Hmmmmm
By Gzus666 on 7/21/2011 11:12:00 AM , Rating: 2
Well, someone has to fire all those people, so that is a lot of jobs right there. Then when the job assembly line comes in and they start making jobs in the factory, someone will have to paradoxically work in the job factory to make more jobs.


RE: Hmmmmm
By danjw1 on 7/21/2011 12:13:08 PM , Rating: 1
Not all are for sale. Anna Eshoo is my congresswoman and she has been on the right side of just about every tech issue. The one on which we disagree is software patents, she supports them, and I believe they harm innovation.


RE: Hmmmmm
By NicodemusMM on 7/21/2011 1:16:29 PM , Rating: 2
The "right side" according to whom? And who says that the votes that she has cast weren't influenced by money, power or public opinion? Nice assumption. I love it when people think that because a politician votes to their satisfaction said politician is honest and incorruptible.

Wake up and smell the political debauchery.

~ Nicodemus


RE: Hmmmmm
By Gzus666 on 7/21/2011 1:22:37 PM , Rating: 3
I think this is one of those times it is safe to assume they are all corrupt till they show otherwise.


RE: Hmmmmm
By Dr of crap on 7/22/2011 8:37:18 AM , Rating: 2
Execellent post - I'd give it a plus 10!!


RE: Hmmmmm
By AntiM on 7/21/2011 12:17:54 PM , Rating: 2
If there are even the slightest semblence of antitrust laws left in the county, this thing will not get approved. I said the same thing about the Comcast/NBC merger, so I think we all know how this is going to end.


RE: Hmmmmm
By Gzus666 on 7/21/2011 12:21:33 PM , Rating: 5
Someone will make the final approval, leave government and go work for a high position in AT&T. GO AMERICA!


RE: Hmmmmm
By Uncle on 7/21/2011 1:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
"In my view, the merger has the potential to provide significant network efficiencies that may help alleviate capacity constraints etc etc". Heres a smart politician, that doesn't want to commit himself and still look good. He uses the word may . He can bow out gracefully if what he says doesn't pan out.


RE: Hmmmmm
By aharris02 on 7/21/2011 1:43:48 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe. I actually think that was just him regurgitating the script he was fed by AT&T lobbyists. I mean really, who is he to form an opinion on the best direction the nations telecom industry should go?

Also, this merger needs to be called The Red-Herring Merger . The one legitimate reason this merger should not happen is met with every red-herring rebuttal AT&T can possibly muster up. [Queue Bono Voice:] "But the jobs, the network, the capactity, the innovation, the children."

They're doing their best to ensure that the public believes this is good by deflecting attention from the issue they know they can't win.


RE: Hmmmmm
By Gzus666 on 7/21/2011 1:53:16 PM , Rating: 2
Someone should just post a call recording of AT&T "customer service" and say, this is why this shouldn't happen.


RE: Hmmmmm
By Reclaimer77 on 7/21/11, Rating: -1
RE: Hmmmmm
By aharris02 on 7/21/2011 5:14:42 PM , Rating: 5
This is a hostile takeover of the wireless industry from most consumers' perspective.


RE: Hmmmmm
By cjohnson2136 on 7/21/2011 5:17:59 PM , Rating: 1
No it's not what consumers have ever thought that about this deal right now.


RE: Hmmmmm
By Reclaimer77 on 7/21/11, Rating: -1
RE: Hmmmmm
By aharris02 on 7/21/2011 5:49:51 PM , Rating: 5
oh i c wut u did thar.

I make a comment about AT&T's attempted takeover of the wireless industry, and instead of trying to refute my point, you direct attention to the part where consumers are generally clueless. CLEVAR!


RE: Hmmmmm
By Reclaimer77 on 7/21/11, Rating: -1
RE: Hmmmmm
By Samus on 7/22/2011 5:48:27 AM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer rode the short bus.


RE: Hmmmmm
By MrBlastman on 7/22/2011 12:07:33 PM , Rating: 1
Okay, I must respectfully disagree here.

First, the Government is under zero obligation to stop a "hostile takeover." I think you misunderstand what one of these such takeovers is--and they can occur in several ways.

1. A person or entity repeatedly buys up stock in a company on the open market until they have a large percentage of ownership in the firm giving them superior voting rights that would allow them to sway a decision from the board--such as them making a solicited offer to buy the rest of the firm.

2. A person or entity makes an unsolicited offer to a firm's shareholders without board consent or approval to buy those shares directly from the shareholders via a tender, thus circumventing the open markets, and getting paid a set price with the shares directly passing to the hostile entity. This method usually takes several attempts and is typically done at a premium to market value to sway the investors to want to give up their shares. It takes time and usually requires multiple rounds of offers before it happens.

Neither of these methods would be "illegal" and thus wouldn't typically require government involvement. They are the two most popular routes--there are others.

Now, with that cleared up, the Government IS obligated to prevent the creation of monopolies and if they do occur, it is obligated to assess, analyze the situation and where appropriate if it determines the free market is hindered, break up the company as was done in the early 1980s when MA Bell was broken up the first time.

Do you remember that? I do clearly as I lived through it.

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

AT&T and Verizon are descendants of this. MA Bell was broken up for good reason--as having direct control over how people communicated via the telephone, they could charge freely whatever they wanted to the point of being unreasonable if they so chose. Couple this with them controlling the wiring properties for transmittal, anyone who chose to compete would either face running their own network of lines (which obviously wouldn't work) or piggyback on MA Bell's--which would gouge them with absurd costs for transmittal.

Look closely at what is happening here. Who are the big players? There aren't many. There is AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile. Sure, there are smaller guys--but they are few and collectively mount little force against the big entities. We are seeing MA Bell be re-born before our eyes.

You are right--AT&T's agenda is to be the largest and most profitable it can be--but, make no mistake, they have zero interest in your own best interests as a consumer. Once they have a stranglehold on communications, do you really think they'll have further incentive to continue to:

a. Innovate.
b. Price fairly.

They won't. Their chief goal at that point, if they are saavy, would be to wipe out all the remaining competition through mergers or sabotauge (such as buying the property their competitors lines/towers/equipment reside on and then demolishing everything on it). This will help nobody but themselves.

You argue though that the free market system will work it out. It will and can to a degree. I believe strongly in our free market system. However, there exists a boundary--that once crossed, enters the realm of antitrust and it is precisely why such laws have existed to stop monopolies from flourishing.

This is exactly one of those situations. It has taken 30 years to get to this point, but, if it is not stopped, will only hurt all of us in the next few years. Just take a look at Verizon jacking up their prices and cutting back service at the same time.


RE: Hmmmmm
By Reclaimer77 on 7/22/2011 12:31:24 PM , Rating: 2
So when the FTC broke up Microsoft into two entities back in 2000 by citing "anti-trust", what did that accomplish? 11 years later we still have the same three OS's to choose from. Innovation didn't flourish across the land in PC software. Prices didn't suddenly drop either, did they? Were the consumers helped or harmed or can we even tell the difference?

So you're telling me AT&T must be stopped or soon we'll have just one carrier and everything will just suck? The only time that's every happened was one isolated incident that keeps being brought up, Ma Bell. In every other example, the free market won the day.

You know what it is, maybe you guys are right. But I just cannot stand to go along with this populist anti-business money is the root of all evil tripe that goes on daily here in DT. I just can't do it. It's so sophomoric and ridiculous.

Very good post, as always Blastman. I agree this "could" happen, but I just believe it's not the governments job to interfere with the market based on what "could" happen. We have NO idea how this will play out 10+ years from now.

I also believe, like Microsoft, AT&T has earned their position through good solid business strategy and investments. Why are they to blame for the state of wireless carriers in the U.S? And nobody has a right to take that away from them or minimize their expansion. If T-Mobile want's to sell out, I don't think it's anyone's place to interfere with it. Concerns about monopolies and the future are all well and good, but the merger is completely legal and from what I can tell is being blocked based on grandstanding and politics alone.

Jesus Christ, we're in a terrible recession here. And you guys think blocking growth and free trade is a good idea right about now?


RE: Hmmmmm
By shaidorsai on 7/24/2011 8:49:17 AM , Rating: 2
Okay I must respectfully disagree with you.

Please stop throwing Ma Bell up as a case study in good government policy. As a decision that was supposed to "help" America by taking apart some monster monopoly it was nothing short of epic fail.

We now wait weeks for repair people to show up...have ever increasing monthly bills...and the networks, both landline and wireless are crap.

There's an assumption originating with paid off politicians and greedy businessmen that somehow deregulating something is always better than having something regulated. Your example of Ma Bell is utter fail because while regulated, the rates people paid for phone service (and that's all that was sold to the general public at that time of Ma Bell...no internet and no wireless existed) were set by the government and controlled. When Ma Bell made more money than the regulation allowed for they had two options...reinvest in the network or give it back to the customer in the form of rebates. Fat cat CEO's were not allowed to rape the public for whatever extorted fee's they could get away with and they certainly didn't get 30+ million dollar "compensation packages" like the current bozo's running American telecom companies. What exactly are we compensating them for anyway? All the complaints they have to listen to about the networks?

Pre-deregulation the extra money made above limits set by Public Utility Commissions would today be reinvested into network upgrades and it's likely the US would have the worlds fastest landline and wireless networks bar none...when Ma Bell was around they were the defacto standard that everyone else aspired to. Network quality and reliability was unmatched by the rest of the world.

Post-deregulation we have a telecom environment where the government has told telecoms they can keep everything they make...so they are. There's a reason your wireless network and internet connections suck in America compared to many other countries...very little of your bill goes to the network...most goes to stock holders and CEO salaries.

One last point...why should the CEO of AT&T or any other telecom that resulted from the terrible government decision to break up Ma Bell be making such outrageous salaries? Why should we have to pay outrageous bills every month? The current CEO's did not start those companies...they did not create and license any of the tech used by these companies...in fact they could be McDonald's managers for all the good they have done for American telecom. At best the current CEO's of big American telecom are stewards of something that should still be a regulated public trust...taxpayer moneys built the network...not the current management of any of these companies.

The very best thing for America would be the re-regulation of all companies created with tax payer money and a move back towards common sense. Set limits on what they can charge and force reinvestment or refund on overly large profit margins on companies created with tax payer money.

If you created a business then do what you like with it...but if tax payer money built your business then it should be regulated and controlled to support the public interest...not the interests of corporate America.


If Sprint is so good....
By bigdawg1988 on 7/21/2011 12:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
why do they have such a hard time attracting subscribers? Supposedly their network is faster, the prices (for unlimited) are cheaper, and they're not AT&T.

I suppose if the deal falls through Sprint will try to acquire T-MO?




RE: If Sprint is so good....
By tng on 7/21/2011 1:26:48 PM , Rating: 2
I am sure that Sprint knew and tried to acquire T-Mobile even before AT&T announced, but sadly Sprint probably does not have the funds to cover such a buyout.


RE: If Sprint is so good....
By nidomus on 7/21/2011 4:51:24 PM , Rating: 2
Sprint tried to. T-Mobile valued itself at between 20-30 billion dollars. Sprint, having a market cap of roughly 14 billion with 50% more subscribers and revenue, thought T-Mobile was asking too much and talks broke down.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487047...


RE: If Sprint is so good....
By mcnabney on 7/21/2011 5:41:06 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, after the merger with Nextel worked out so well, they decided that instead of fixing their own company (they haven't actually been profitable for almost six years) they would try to buy another.

Because if there is one thing that will make a wireless company more efficient is operating EVERY DAMN TYPE OF WIRELESS NETWORK THAT EXISTS! So if T-Mobile and Sprint merged they would concurrently operate CDMA/1xRTT/EVDO-0/EVDO-A/Wimax/iDEN/EDGE/HSPA/HSPDA /HSPA+/GSM and LTE (planned). Hell, maybe there might be some TDMA floating around somewhere too. Outrageously stupid.

/a non-wireless company needs to buy T-Mobile
//and a different one needs to buy Sprint to save it from itself.


RE: If Sprint is so good....
By Solandri on 7/21/2011 6:47:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because if there is one thing that will make a wireless company more efficient is operating EVERY DAMN TYPE OF WIRELESS NETWORK THAT EXISTS! So if T-Mobile and Sprint merged they would concurrently operate CDMA/1xRTT/EVDO-0/EVDO-A/Wimax/iDEN/EDGE/HSPA/HSPDA /HSPA+/GSM and LTE (planned). Hell, maybe there might be some TDMA floating around somewhere too. Outrageously stupid.

Sprint sold off some of their towers (and immediately leased rights to use them from the new owners) to raise capital. But a consequence of this is that they're becoming a technology-agnostic carrier. If they don't own the towers, what do they care what technology it uses? They just sign service agreements with tower owners at sufficient capacity to provide service to their customers with phones using each specific technology. So yes they could concurrently operate CDMA and GSM networks. They already concurrently operate Nextel's iDEN network.

Arguably, this is really the way the industry should be. The carriers sell service to customers, but don't own any towers. The tower owners sell service to carriers, but don't sell to customers. This makes it a level playing field for everyone. A new company trying to break into the carrier market doesn't need the huge capital investment in towers and frequencies to compete. All they need is enough contracts with tower owners to provide nationwide coverage. And a new company trying to break into the tower market doesn't need a large pre-existing base of customers in order to compete. You could operate a single tower in your backyard in a poor coverage area, and sell access to it to carriers.

And GSM and iDEN are TDMA.


RE: If Sprint is so good....
By Reclaimer77 on 7/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: If Sprint is so good....
By mcnabney on 7/21/2011 9:17:08 PM , Rating: 2
Ahh, you do know that Sprint doesn't even operate THEIR OWN DAMN NETWORK?

So the third biggest carrier in the US is technically Sony-Ericsson. They have run it for a couple years now.


A roaming agreement would be far better!
By djdjohnson on 7/21/2011 11:07:10 AM , Rating: 5
I support the Tea Party's idea of cutting government spending, but I sincerely disagree with their assessment that this merger could be a good thing. If the idea of using resources from both networks is really at the heart of the proposed plan, why not just sign an agreement to allow both companies to use each other's towers? It doesn't require a full-on merger to make that happen!

This merger isn't good for anyone except AT&T's shareholders. They've clearly demonstrated over time that they don't really care about the quality of their service, and they've already indicated that they intend to remove "unnecessary" T-Mobile network equipment to prevent duplication, resulting in a substantial decrease in coverage for its customers, while at the same time increasing plan rates for T-Mo customers. This whole merger is a horrible idea for consumers, reducing choice and quality of service, at increased cost to the public. This thing should never be allowed to go through.




RE: A roaming agreement would be far better!
By Jeryko7 on 7/21/2011 12:35:21 PM , Rating: 1
I also support cuts in government rape of my wallet. If they want to share towers with each other that's fine but service as a whole will be worse with a merger. Sure AT&T customers will get more bandwidth and better service but we T-mobile customers will have far worse service as the AT&T customers gobble up our network, thereby negating any theoretical 'increase in service quality' of the AT&T side by negative network impact on ALL current T-Mobile customers. My T-Mobile works fine, I don't need fixed what isn't broken. The only thing that will increase are the monthly plan prices as Sprint goes out of business and you have no choice other than Emperor Verizon, or his Sith Lord protege Darth AT&T.

Oh, and one aspect a previous poster did not take into consideration is that at the 'Job Factories' they will form a union and demand higher wages and benefits than the market can bear, thereby making the 'jobs' they produce in the factory too expensive for most Americans to 'buy'.


RE: A roaming agreement would be far better!
By Samus on 7/22/2011 6:02:50 AM , Rating: 1
Jeryko, exactly. It's pretty obvious AT&T is going to phase out the T-mo network, its customers, and in 2 or 3 years, nobody will even remember T-mobile, the company that made wireless affordable. The company that brought us the Sidekick. The company that pioneered the Android market (HTC Dream/G1.) The company that ALWAYS had an option for unlimited data at a reasonable price. And most importantly, of all US carriers, a company that didn't actually care about customers using unlocked, modified, or even unauthorized equipment. Ultimate flexibility.

Try to get any of this stuff from Verizon. All they've given us over the last 10 years is locked down hardware, the most expensive prices in the industry, and REALLY slow data. But at least they delivered the Droid.

AT&T...God damn I don't even know where to begin. The company is a complete mess from top-to-bottom in every market they're in from DSL/U-verse to wireless to corporate infrastructure (communications, T1, etc.)

I don't think there is a single doubt AT&T has the flakiest network on the planet. I tried them for a week and figured it was my phone, so I returned it for a Nokia E72 and signal was just as inconsistent, call quality was a joke, and the data at the time was quite expensive, especially overages and international (traveling to Canada was 2 cents/KB)

I don't know why anybody has AT&T. The iPhone literally saved them. They must have paid Apple billions.


By shaidorsai on 7/24/2011 9:02:42 AM , Rating: 2
And yet AT&T continues to grow profits at double digit rates across all data platforms...this is fact.

You can say they are a mess all day long but apparently one of two facts is inescapable...either they are not as bad as you say...or people have no other option on who to do business with.

If the reason they are making money almost faster than they can give it to the CEO in ridiculous bonus packages is people have no other option then that's a truly sad state of affairs in America...

Maybe free market capitalism isn't always the right answer? What a concept...


RE: A roaming agreement would be far better!
By The Raven on 7/21/2011 1:57:29 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I support the Tea Party's idea of cutting government spending, but I sincerely disagree with their assessment that this merger could be a good thing.

I'm with you and I am a tea party (note the lower case t&p) "member". If fact, you might be a 'member' too since there is no such thing. There is no real national "The Tea Party" but merely loosely affiliated groups with similar basic beliefs that speak to what you say you believe here (in line with The Boston Tea Party.

I mean look here where Lee has an 'R' after his name meaning he is a Republican. Not a "member" of a non-existent "The Tea Party".
quote:
Senator Mike Lee ( R -Utah)
quote:
Verizon also donated directly to Sen. Lee's election campaign and fellow Tea Party members in the Senate.

I swear if it had been "The Boston Tea Consortium" then we wouldn't have this problem due to the fact that most nightly news reporters are dumber than they look.

Having said that, there are local groups that are actual political parties such as the... you guessed it...The Boston Tea Party https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bos...

But as I said Mike Lee has an 'R' after his name. So go figger.


By The Raven on 7/21/2011 2:19:15 PM , Rating: 2
lol, the link I posted kind of disproves my point!

I was unaware of the afore-linked Boston Tea Party. It actually is a national political party (since 2006)!! I just searched for a random link to one of the local parties that I was talking about and grabbed that one.

In the words of The Spleen, "Big missstake!"

What I should've done was grab one like this...
http://www.teapartypatriots.org

But to reset, my point is that Lee is an 'R' and not a 'T'. And you don't have to carry a card to be a teapartier. You can be a D or an R or an L or a G. Actually maybe not a G.


Do these people rea*$@ matter?
By tng on 7/21/2011 11:03:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
AT&T claims the merger is supported by 26 governors, 76 (of the 193) Democratic members of congress, 72 mayors, and unions that represent 20 million members.
So if the merger is not in violation of Antitrust laws, why would AT&T trot out this claim? Sounds fishy....

Who cares that these people are for it, the deal should stand on it's own merits. It is not like they did a scientific poll of these people. Will they get Kim Kardashian out there to lobby the FCC next?




RE: Do these people rea*$@ matter?
By tng on 7/21/2011 11:06:59 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, what happened to the title bar. Was supposed to read "Do these people REALLY matter?" not sure what happened with that, wasn't me.


By bigdawg1988 on 7/21/2011 12:05:23 PM , Rating: 1
I guess REALLY is a banned word, maybe because it has ALLY in it, and Jason just doesn't like making friends. lol


RE: Do these people rea*$@ matter?
By Gyres01 on 7/25/2011 11:11:43 AM , Rating: 2
Senate...my ass do you think any of those worthless fools even pay for cell service?


...
By NellyFromMA on 7/21/2011 3:34:38 PM , Rating: 2
The fundamental problem is that Verizon is dominating the market right now and taking huge advantage of it. AT&T aquiring T-Mobile would do little to address it as AT&T's goals are quite similar.

Blocking this deal is a good move, but it still leave the original problem with the market right there. Smells like a VZW lobbying job to me.




RE: ...
By cmdrdredd on 7/21/2011 4:07:17 PM , Rating: 2
I sort of think you're on the right track. The problem with US wireless service isn't related to coverage, dropped calls or voice quality at all. It's that the companies in charge of the data network refuse to upgrade and expand their infrastructure to handle new technology and new devices.

They advertise new phones that can go on the internet, skype with video, netflix, youtube, live TV etc. If they advertise the devices to be able to do all this and at 4G LTE speeds, they should have a network capable of handling it. Clearly they do not because they are putting caps on everyone now (unless you're a current subscriber in which case you're locked in forever and if you switch another company will lock you into data caps). That's the main fault with the state of things when it comes to wireless service in the US.


RE: ...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By tng on 7/22/2011 9:39:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Uncertainty is the enemy of investment and innovation....You are talking about billions of dollars in upgrades and investments
Well said.

I see allot of that here, people just don't understand that yes some large companies makes literally billions, but they don't pay attention to the actual profit from those billions. Somehow they fail to take into account that companies have expenses such as employee salaries, equipment and building maintenance, lawyers, etc... money goes out the door really quickly in a big company.


ostensi b l y
By andylawcc on 7/21/2011 4:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
again? Jason, for real?




xbxcv
By yuioking on 7/21/11, Rating: 0
"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive













botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki