backtop


Print 72 comment(s) - last by sorry dog.. on Sep 1 at 3:43 PM


“AT&T’s elimination of T-Mobile as an independent, low- priced rival would remove a significant competitive force from the market." -- U.S. DOJ  (Source: Miramax Films)
U.S. Justice Department says combined company would break antitrust laws

AT&T Inc.'s (T) bid to acquire to rival U.S. carrier Deutsche Telekom AG's (ETR:DTE) T-Mobile USA may have slammed into a roadblock today, with Bloomberg reporting that the U.S. Department of Justice had filed paperwork to block the acquisition. 

Back in March, AT&T first announced its intentions to purchase T-Mobile for a whopping $39 billion USD ($25 billion USD in cash, the remainder in stock).  Reportedly AT&T had been negotiating the purchase behind closed doors since January.

The deal would mark the latest consolidation in the race by America's top carriers Verizon Communications
, Inc. (VZ) and AT&T to gobble up would-be competitors.  Had the deal been approved it would have granted AT&T and Verizon control over more than 80 percent of American cell phone contracts -- a "duopoly" according to some.  AT&T would have approximately 130 million subscribers, while Verizon would have 97 million subscribers.

Verizon and AT&T often marched in lock step when it came to pricing and contract terms, as witnessed by both companies' decisions to kill "unlimited" smart phone internet privileges for new customers [1][2].

AT&T Chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson championed the deal, stating that it would fulfill President's Obama's vision to blanket the nation with high-speed wireless access:

This transaction delivers significant customer, shareowner and public benefits that are available at this level only from the combination of these two companies with complementary network technologies, spectrum positions and operations. We are confident in our ability to execute a seamless integration, and with additional spectrum and network capabilities, we can better meet our customers’ current demands, build for the future and help achieve the President’s goals for a high-speed, wirelessly connected America.

However, almost the majority AT&T and T-Mobile customers we interviewed expressed concern about the deal -- particularly T-Mobile customers who feared increases from T-Mobile's budget prices.

The deal would have left Sprint Nextel Corp. (S), who bitterly opposed the deal, in a distant third place, with 52 million customers.  Sprint thus far has refused to join the informal Verizon-AT&T coalition when it comes to contract terms -- it continues to offer unlimited internet. 

Reportedly the U.S. Justice Department sided with Sprint in the end, filing paperwork to block the merger, citing antitrust concerns. 

"AT&T’s elimination of T-Mobile as an independent, low- priced rival would remove a significant competitive force from the market," said the filing [press release].

"The combination of AT&T and T-Mobile would result in tens of millions of consumers all across the United States facing higher prices, fewer choices and lower quality products for mobile wireless services," said Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole. "Consumers across the country, including those in rural areas and those with lower incomes, benefit from competition among the nation's wireless carriers, particularly the four remaining national carriers. This lawsuit seeks to ensure that everyone can continue to receive the benefits of that competition."

If the U.S. Government makes good on its intentions and officially blocks the sale of T-Mobile, AT&T has promised to pay Deutsche Telekom $3 billion USD in cash. In addition, Deutsche Telekom would receive an additional $2 billion USD worth of spectrum and secure a $1 billion USD roaming agreement reports Reuters.

Both AT&T and Sprint have responded to the actions by the DOJ. Up first is Wayne Watts, AT&T Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel:

We are surprised and disappointed by today’s action, particularly since we have met repeatedly with the Department of Justice and there was no indication from the DOJ that this action was being contemplated.

We plan to ask for an expedited hearing so the enormous benefits of this merger can be fully reviewed. The DOJ has the burden of proving alleged anti-competitive affects and we intend to vigorously contest this matter in court.

At the end of the day, we believe facts will guide any final decision and the facts are clear. This merger will:

  • Help solve our nation’s spectrum exhaust situation and improve wireless service for millions.
  • Allow AT&T to expand 4G LTE mobile broadband to another 55 million Americans, or 97% of the population;
  • Result in billions of additional investment and tens of thousands of jobs, at a time when our nation needs them most. 

We remain confident that this merger is in the best interest of consumers and our country, and the facts will prevail in court.

Next up is Vonya B. McCann, senior vice president of Government Affairs for Sprint:

The DOJ today delivered a decisive victory for consumers, competition and our country. By filing suit to block AT&T’s proposed takeover of T-Mobile, the DOJ has put consumers’ interests first. Sprint applauds the DOJ for conducting a careful and thorough review and for reaching a just decision – one which will ensure that consumers continue to reap the benefits of a competitive U.S. wireless industry. Contrary to AT&T’s assertions, today’s action will preserve American jobs, strengthen the American economy, and encourage innovation....



Comments     Threshold


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

Good
By Raiders12 on 8/31/2011 11:37:04 AM , Rating: 5
While I don't want the govt meddling in everyone's private business, this is a encessary move. Wasn't it just 15-20 yrs ago ATT was broken up for being a monopoly? I'm not with ATT, but when it comes to cell phone shopping, I'd hate to only have ATT or Verizon as choices.




RE: Good
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/31/2011 11:39:08 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Wasn't it just 15-20 yrs ago ATT was broken up for being a monopoly?


Stephen Colbert said it best...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsCp-1hgfxI

:-)


RE: Good
By Shig on 8/31/2011 11:45:07 AM , Rating: 2
"AT&T is the T-1000 of corporations, no matter how many pieces you break it into, it ALWAYS comes back together."

6 for that link Brandon


RE: Good
By quiksilvr on 8/31/2011 12:00:23 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. The thing is though, it isn't just about having a "duopoly" in the market. If AT&T buys T-Mobile, it will be the ONLY GSM major cellphone company in America. Sprint is heading down a WiMax path that isn't futureproof by any means and might have to merge with Verizon to stay competitive, making that the only major CDMA cellphone company in America. Either Verizon goes GSM (highly HIGHLY unlikely) or this merger simply cannot happen.


RE: Good
By mcnabney on 8/31/2011 12:33:10 PM , Rating: 2
You haven't kept up.

Sprint is ditching WiMaxx and going with LTE. Eventually all US carriers will have LTE with Verizon there already and AT&T to follow next year. Not sure how Sprint will change techs. If they want to avoid operating two 4G networks they are going to have to brick all of their Wimaxx devices.


RE: Good
By jnemesh on 8/31/2011 1:42:33 PM , Rating: 2
Its worth noting, however, that AT&T LTE will not be compatible with Verizon LTE, which will not work with Sprint LTE, etc. Even though the TECHNOLOGY is the same, these companies will be operating at different frequencies. The dream of being able to take a sim chip out of a Verizon phone and plugging it into an AT&T or T-Mobile phone is still far, far away.


RE: Good
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/31/2011 2:02:59 PM , Rating: 2
LTE uses different frequencies in every major country, the standard for LTE is a complete cluster****. Any phone that promises to be "international" will be able to handle all the carriers in the US and several other countries. No worries on that.


RE: Good
By DanNeely on 8/31/2011 2:34:35 PM , Rating: 2
That's true as far as it goes; but unless you buy an unlocked phone it won't do you any good in the US. VZW has stated that while they'll unlock their phones to work on international GSM/LTE networks for customers in good standing, the unlock will not remove the restriction prohibiting them from connecting to ATTs (or IIRC any other US rivals) 3/4g network that they don't already have a roaming agreement with.


RE: Good
By HrilL on 8/31/2011 2:07:51 PM , Rating: 2
The equipment sprint has been installing for wimax was also designed to support LTE with a software update from what I’ve read. Also Sprint has a lot of extra spectrum right now so running both networks at the same time shouldn’t be an issue. Don't think they're going to avoid it and probably run both nextworks for at least 4 years while the phase out the older devices.


RE: Good
By DanNeely on 8/31/2011 2:42:23 PM , Rating: 2
Even if Sprint buys clearwire I think you're being optimistic. It's been 6 years since they bought Nextel and despite only being obligated to maintain it for 4 years as part of the merger terms the iDen shutdown date keeps getting pushed into the future. Currently it's 2013, but with new iDen phones having launched this past April and the first non-iDen push to talk phones not due until next year I don't see it going away until 2014 at the earliest.

Sprint also is yet to publicly articulate how it's going to handle their iDen only roaming partners, as those without CDMA/GSM service as well will be left high and dry when the network is shut down. With sprint/clearwire talking about letting 3rd parties resell their wimax service they could easily find themselves in a similar situation with that platform.


RE: Good
By woody1 on 9/1/2011 12:05:08 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. If t-Mobile doesn't want to stay in the US wireless business, they should sell their assets to another provider. Or else the FCC should reclaim their spectrum and auction it to new market entrants.

Either way, a duopoly is not good. And this merger will mean an outright monopoly on GSM service, making AT&T the only US company to use the international standard.


RE: Good
By MrBlastman on 8/31/2011 11:49:25 AM , Rating: 5
Lets all take this moment to silently reflect and shed a little tear... Tears of JOY!


RE: Good
By Jeffk464 on 8/31/2011 11:50:58 AM , Rating: 2
Hey good news for the consumer. A wireless duopoly is no good for anyone except for verizon and at&t. By the way when you have no government involvement you end up with things like all the mortgage fraud that killed our economy.


RE: Good
By Shig on 8/31/2011 11:51:45 AM , Rating: 4
But republicans told me de-regulation was good on fox news.


RE: Good
By cjohnson2136 on 8/31/2011 11:53:10 AM , Rating: 5
They lied to you


RE: Good
By Shig on 8/31/2011 11:53:41 AM , Rating: 5
FOX NEWS LIED?!


RE: Good
By woody1 on 9/1/2011 12:06:45 PM , Rating: 2
They lie to you over and over again. Remember Fox = Rupert Murdoch = Satan.


RE: Good
By MrBlastman on 8/31/2011 12:11:46 PM , Rating: 1
But the Democrats told me that Obama was good for our economy before the 2008 election on CNN.

Fox is obviously biased. So is CNN. So is MSNBC. They all have an agenda. Heck, I even listen to NPR on a weekly basis *gasp* and I can hear bias there also.

This action by the DOJ is a good thing. It is necessary and good for the spirit of capitalism.


RE: Good
By threepac3 on 8/31/2011 12:20:12 PM , Rating: 4
I agree with you on all of that. Only thing is Fox News is the only one saying it's "Fair and Balanced".


RE: Good
By FITCamaro on 8/31/2011 9:29:33 PM , Rating: 2
Fox News is biased. But you know what? They're the only ones not calling me racist for believing in limited government.

Also, political discussions on other networks consist of an extreme liberal and a less extreme liberal calling themselves a Republican.

Political discussions on Fox News consist of a liberal (ex. Juan Williams who is a full time employee of Fox News) and a conservative (sometimes they're not even that conservative either). Honestly I've even lost respect for Charles Krauthammer (sp?). Sometimes he's spot on. But his criticism of conservative candidates because his attitude was that they were "too conservative to win" made me lose respect for him.

Which is more balanced?

As far as the article, personally I think the government should stay out of it. There are still 3 major carriers. And lots of smaller ones. It isn't the government's job to make sure people have quality and cheap cell phone plans. A cell phone is a luxury. If they're going after AT&T for this, why not Coke and Pepsi? Not that I want them to.


RE: Good
By sorry dog on 9/1/2011 3:39:25 PM , Rating: 2
I tend to agree with most things FIT says, but I take issue with a cell phone being called a luxury and more than car or a laptop being called a luxury. Angry Birds not withstanding, if did not have a cell phone then I could not do my job...or at least not in the way my employer wants me to.
...and since frequency spectrum is considered public, and a significant part of the cost of cell service, then I believe that gives the government a significant interest in that business even before you consider anti-trust laws.


RE: Good
By Jeffk464 on 8/31/2011 12:38:50 PM , Rating: 5
Thats why god invented BBC america. :)


RE: Good
By ARoyalF on 8/31/2011 8:56:33 PM , Rating: 2
+6


RE: Good
By Reclaimer77 on 8/31/11, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By gamerk2 on 8/31/2011 2:17:37 PM , Rating: 1
Care explaining that one to me? Considering NPR is probably the most neutral medium left if the US.


RE: Good
By Reclaimer77 on 8/31/2011 2:32:07 PM , Rating: 1
NPR neutral? LOL! I can see discussing this with you, like most things gamer, is a waste of time.

Media Liberalism is so commonplace that it's apparently impossible for those exposed to it daily to recognize it for what it is.

How can you honestly believe that a news outlet that's publicly funded; meaning it only exists because of government funding, can possibly be unbiased and not left of center? They are certainly not going to bite the hand that feeds them.

Oh by the way, the last person running NPR publicly called Republicans "anti-intellectual" and Tea Party members "racists". So much so that she was actually fired over it. Real "neutral", right? The new NPR chief, Joyce Slocum, donated thousands of dollars to Democrat campaigns. But yeah, I'm sure she's real neutral too.

The most neutral medium left in the US is this, the Internet. Where you are free to explore and learn from a variety of sources and viewpoints. Where nobody can force a message or slant on you because you simply have few to no alternatives.


RE: Good
By nolisi on 8/31/2011 3:25:37 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Media Liberalism is so commonplace that it's apparently impossible for those exposed to it daily to recognize it for what it is.


This argument presupposes that conservative dialogue hasn't become so extreme that anything inconsistent with its view becomes extreme liberalism...


RE: Good
By room200 on 8/31/2011 6:11:17 PM , Rating: 2
Ding, ding, ding!! We have a winner.


RE: Good
By FITCamaro on 8/31/2011 9:32:56 PM , Rating: 4
Because wanting a balanced budget and limited government are just CRAZY ideas right?


RE: Good
By sorry dog on 9/1/2011 3:43:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh by the way, the last person running NPR publicly called Republicans "anti-intellectual" and Tea Party members "racists". So much so that she was actually fired over it. Real "neutral", right?


I know!...and have you listened to Car Talk lately...the political diatribes of those guys is just unbearable...


RE: Good
By MrBlastman on 8/31/2011 2:42:03 PM , Rating: 4
It certainly is not neutral. Haven't you heard of the recent scandals involving Juan Williams? Granted, his firing lead to some upper level changes at NPR but still...

Mostly I listen to the station in the morning for classical music, but will listen sometimes in the afternoon for their take on news also, much like I'll watch PBS's news at times also. I do this for perspective. One can not possibly be fully abreast of the world if they listen to just one single point of view.


RE: Good
By Reclaimer77 on 8/31/11, Rating: -1
RE: Good
By tdawg on 8/31/2011 3:39:16 PM , Rating: 2
NPR's Morning Edition and website reported on the firing and the resulting fallout / scandal around his firing.

The issue was even more fully addressed by The Daily Show via a complete interview between Juan Williams and Jon Stewart.


RE: Good
By Reclaimer77 on 8/31/2011 4:02:18 PM , Rating: 1
The Daily Show is NOT a legitimate news outlet, it's a comedy show. And NPR obviously HAD to address this themselves and put their own spin on it.

Go find MSNBC or CBS breaking the story, you won't. I doubt they even mentioned it.


RE: Good
By room200 on 8/31/2011 6:20:06 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40954239/ns/us_news-li...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20020302-103...

and Rachel Maddow had a long segment about it on her show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUjrWsq-NRE

It was talked about on NBC all day, and they either played the undercover video or the transcript. What you're saying is 100% false.


RE: Good
By Reclaimer77 on 8/31/11, Rating: -1
RE: Good
By tdawg on 9/1/2011 1:33:49 AM , Rating: 2
[quote] it isn't necessarily what gets reported but HOW. Their bias in the way they handle this story, and any others that don't fit their warped view of things, is evident. If a Conservative institution did this to the man this story would be top billing for WEEKS, and you know it.[/quote]

Fox News does this every day. You agree with it so it jives with your world view. For others, it doesn't, so it's seen as biased and slanted.


RE: Good
By tdawg on 9/1/2011 1:30:20 AM , Rating: 2
Honestly I don't care. You can shout to the heavens that the media is against you all you want. Have fun.


RE: Good
By FITCamaro on 8/31/2011 9:36:21 PM , Rating: 2
What scandal? He made a comment the even more extreme liberals than himself didn't like and was fired for it.


RE: Good
By FITCamaro on 8/31/2011 9:21:59 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for the spit take I did after reading that. Good joke.


RE: Good
By Reclaimer77 on 8/31/2011 1:34:47 PM , Rating: 2
Being against excessive regulation isn't the same as "deregulation".


RE: Good
By cmdrdredd on 8/31/2011 5:17:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But republicans told me de-regulation was good on fox news.


Difference explanation...

1) Telling Boeing it cannot build a plant where they want and hire who they want (giving jobs to people who might be otherwise unemployed) is where the government and other groups should stay away.

2) Telling a company they cannot buy up every competitor to eliminate them in order to solidify a market position and place themselves in a position of being the sole provider for a particular service is where the government and other groups should step in and just say no.


Really???
By cpeter38 on 8/31/2011 11:46:54 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
We are confident in our ability to execute a seamless integration, and with additional spectrum and network capabilities, we can better meet our customers’ current demands , build for the future and help achieve the President’s goals for a high-speed, wirelessly connected America.


That may be one of the biggest lies I have read in quite some time. Even though I lean conservative/libertarian, I have to side with the Obama administration on this issue. I would bet my next month's paycheck that every AT&T "merger" related board meeting discussed at least one of the following:

1.) Money that could be saved by firing worker bees.

2.) Money that could be saved by deploying less equipment per customer.

3.) Money that could be squeezed from customers that now had one national low cost alternative (Sprint*).

I am sure that satisfying customer needs received very little airtime (and was pure lip service).

* I am not a Sprint fanbois - I have been an AT&T customer for a long time.




RE: Really???
By Jeffk464 on 8/31/2011 11:52:54 AM , Rating: 2
From what I heard it was also a lie that it would save at&t money on deploying equipment.


RE: Really???
By Jeffk464 on 8/31/2011 11:53:48 AM , Rating: 2
And lets not forget it would put the T-mobile girl out of a job. :)


RE: Really???
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/31/2011 11:56:09 AM , Rating: 3
I don't know who I liked better... Catherine Zeta Jones in her prime or this new chick.


RE: Really???
By MrBlastman on 8/31/2011 12:14:31 PM , Rating: 2
Catherine was hot. I hear she was bipolar too... That could be great one moment at bat%#@&crazy the next. Either way, Michael Douglas at least got some nice eye candy.


RE: Really???
By Reclaimer77 on 8/31/2011 1:36:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
That could be great one moment at bat%#@&crazy the next.


That's pretty much every hottie :P


RE: Really???
By MrBlastman on 8/31/2011 1:47:19 PM , Rating: 2
At least they look good while going nuts as some sort of consolation.


RE: Really???
By Reclaimer77 on 8/31/2011 5:40:04 PM , Rating: 2
Meah I got tired of dealing with that. That's why my current GF is an overweight single mother of three. She never goes nuts, she cooks like a pro, and realizes how lucky she is to have a guy like me. Zero drama!


RE: Really???
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/31/2011 5:49:54 PM , Rating: 2
Single mother of three? WTH, you hooked up with a Democrat? ;)


RE: Really???
By Reclaimer77 on 8/31/2011 6:05:34 PM , Rating: 3
No, she's not on Welfare :)


RE: Really???
By Makaveli on 8/31/2011 2:45:10 PM , Rating: 2
Catherine Zeta jones is better looking. Better face, Better body, euro hot. That T mobile chick looks like anyone chick I see walking down the street.


RE: Really???
By semiconshawn on 8/31/2011 3:22:34 PM , Rating: 3
You owe it to all men.. tell us where this magical street is.


RE: Really???
By rburnham on 8/31/2011 12:44:21 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Really???
By Flunk on 8/31/2011 11:53:03 AM , Rating: 2
That's capitalism right there.


RE: Really???
By Jeffk464 on 8/31/2011 11:55:41 AM , Rating: 1
Pure capitalism results in robber barons and workers barely above slave status. Unless you are a robber baron I don't see why anyone would want pure capitalism. You guys listen to too much fox news propaganda.


RE: Really???
By Nutzo on 8/31/2011 2:42:14 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Pure capitalism results in robber barons and workers barely above slave status. Unless you are a robber baron I don't see why anyone would want pure capitalism. You guys listen to too much fox news propaganda.


Wrong.
What you are referring to is closer to Mercantilism
The robber barons cannot exist without support from the government to hold onto their monopolies.

Pure capitalism, with limited laws & regulations (like in the US constitution) provided the best opportunity and the highest overall standard of living for the middle class.


RE: Really???
By room200 on 8/31/2011 6:28:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Pure capitalism, with limited laws & regulations (like in the US constitution) provided the best opportunity and the highest overall standard of living for the middle class.


So-called pure capitlism is what's giving us high unemployment today. It's given us a so-called global market. I don't know how "global" a market is when everyone is free to sell their crap to us because we have so little regulation yet we can't sell diddly or own property in other countries. They already know the truth; we Americans are just so stupid that refuse to see.


RE: Really???
By skyward03 on 8/31/2011 6:29:39 PM , Rating: 2
Pure capitalism, with limited laws & regulations = capitalism.

You dont need the Pure in it.


RE: Really???
By FITCamaro on 8/31/2011 9:41:45 PM , Rating: 2
Is it fun being stupid?


!!!
By icanhascpu on 8/31/2011 12:55:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We are confident in our ability to execute a seamless integration, and with additional spectrum and network capabilities, we can better meet our customers’ current demands, build for the future and help achieve the President’s goals for a high-speed, wirelessly connected America.


F U C K Y O U A T & T.




RE: !!!
By cmdrdredd on 8/31/2011 5:25:20 PM , Rating: 2
Basically saying "we(AT&T) are too lazy and greedy to expand the network ourselves and spend money on new towers and new technologies. We want to buy everyone else's stuff so we don't have to invest in it, we just use what they have. We're sorry all you iPhone users who get 30 dropped calls a day, we won't install new towers or fix our network up because you are still paying us. Why do we need to do anything when you keep paying for the junk service? If we can buy everyone out, you don't have to shop around for which service is good. You just buy ours, it's easier for us to get rich that way."


RE: !!!
By Targon on 8/31/2011 10:50:23 PM , Rating: 2
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to set up new towers, with all the idiots in local governments shutting down discussions for NO valid reason? It isn't about being lazy, it is about dealing with all the red tape.

Now, if you really want to promote fairness, then all existing cell phone towers MUST be made available to any other carrier that wants to use it, including all those Verizon towers. You can be SURE that AT&T would have identical coverage to what Verizon has if that were to happen. Make TOWERS the cellular version of "common carrier" status, and that would solve much of the coverage issues that AT&T has.


RE: !!!
By woody1 on 9/1/2011 3:04:57 PM , Rating: 2
Cell phone towers are sometimes owned by the service provider and sometimes owned by a 3rd party who is in the tower business. Either way, it's normal practice to rent out tower space to other providers. So, the whole tower issue may be beside the point.

AT&T could presumably occupy the same towers as Verizon or t-Mobile and frequently do. If AT&T coverage is not equal to Verizons, it's more likely that it's a lack of investment in equipment vs. availability of towers.


Deutsche Telekom
By monitorjbl on 8/31/2011 12:58:14 PM , Rating: 2
It seems pretty apparent that DT wants to leave the US market, or they would never have agreed to this in the first place. I would assume that they want the money to fund some expansion in another region. Now that this avenue is blocked, perhaps they'll end up selling off their cell network in chunks so the remaining companies will be able to get a portion?

It wouldn't net them as much money, but since the only other company that can realistically get away with a purchase is Sprint and they don't have the money to do it, it's possible that they may end up auctioning off their towers. One can only hope; it would be nice if I had more bars :(




RE: Deutsche Telekom
By DanNeely on 8/31/2011 2:50:41 PM , Rating: 2
DT's wanted out of the US market for several years because they haven't been able to get enough marketshare/low enough turnover. They've basically held their network in a holding pattern for several years only doing the least costly upgrades (and not acquiring any 4g spectrum) while trying to milk the maximum out of their existing 3g investment.

The combination of $3bn cash and 10mhz spectrum that they'll get if the ATT deal fails will give them the resources to build the core of an LTE network. (Although 20mhz would be much better; but medium term they could always copy Japans moves and route all their voice traffic over 3/4g and re-purpose their existing 2g spectrum for LTE.) If DT will try and do so themselves, look for an angel investor to buy the network, or simply spin tmobile off is unknown.


Good! Horray for Competition!
By Arsynic on 8/31/2011 1:29:27 PM , Rating: 4
Having just AT&T and Verizon would have been like choosing which rapist you want to get raped by.




Lies
By rstat1 on 9/1/2011 1:10:11 AM , Rating: 2
They're continuing their lies till the end I see.

Also:
"...55 million Americans.." is not 97% percent of the population




RE: Lies
By cjohnson2136 on 9/1/2011 10:55:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
55 million Americans.." is not 97% percent of the population


Might have read it wrong. The way I see it is they are expanding there network to an additional 55 million. Adding that 55 million would increase their coverage to 97% of the total population.


"This is a tasty burger!"
By rburnham on 8/31/2011 12:45:37 PM , Rating: 2
Way to work in a Pulp Fiction picture.




Let's Compare
By dxf2891 on 9/1/2011 9:22:12 AM , Rating: 2
AT&T
$100/mo for monthly minutes
$30/mo unlimited data
$30/mo unlimited texting
$30/mo tethering

Sprint
$99/mo for everything

No contest




"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














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