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

Meh...
By Myrandex on 6/28/2011 2:11:50 PM , Rating: -1
Sprint quit worrying about it and focus on your own customer service, network, and devices, similarly to the message you send to AT&T.

I don't remember you making such a big fuss about Verizon gobbling up Alltel? This merger of two mostly compatible network would be a nice benefit to both AT&T and T-Mobile customers. Infrastructure could increase quickly with this, and the prospect of using T-Mobile's 1700Mhz. Spectrum for AT&T's LTE network would be nice competition to Verizon.

Jason




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!


"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan

Related Articles













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