AT&T will have to give pay the 3 billion fee PLUS give back spectrum and other equipment worth another 3 Billion. All told AT&T will be out about 6 billion.

I am so happy this did not go through. All they would have done is raise the T Mobile users monthly costs.

"bowing to regulatory opposition over the deal that would have made it the largest cellphone operator in the country."

Nuf said.

Why is that "nuf," Danni? Someone is going to be the biggest cellphone operator in the country. Someone is the biggest right now. Should regulators do something about that?

Why is that "nuf"?

Do the words "Too Big to Fail" or "Anti-Trust" or "Virtual Monopoly" mean anything to you?

Be Well.

Too Big to Fail = Too Big to Save.

A company so large that they will take down the US economy with it must be broken apart. No company should have that kind of control over a country.

Do the words "Too Big to Fail" or "Anti-Trust" or "Virtual Monopoly" mean anything to you?

They do, 'Pud. But just because a company is the "biggest" doesn't mean they have a "monopoly." Last I checked, cellphone users would have still had Verizon, Sprint, US Cellular, Tracfone, MetroPCS, Cricket, and any number of local providers available to them.

" Should regulators do something about that?"

We should enforce anti-trust laws to prevent mergers with stifle competition as this one would have. That's why we have anti-trust laws, they have not been enforced for decades adn we have an economic catastrophe to prove it.

Ya Joe, here's the problem with that theory. There would have been 3 big cell phone carriers with their own networks. 2 gianormous ones and a big one actually. Sure there is a bunch of also rans and pre-paid services but here is the issue...

To get the kind of phones (and coverage actually) most people want - you have to go to the big 3 (4). It's not like I can't get top notch service with the other that meets my needs. I can't use the phones that work on the network is the issue. The reason for that is not their size but rather that they are limited by their servitude to the big boys. They don't have their own networks - they piggy back on someone else's. And the big boys limit what the small carriers can do. Sure some of them are now trying to build out their own networks but spectrum prices and limited availability pretty much makes that laughable.

ATT wasn't far off base. Frequency bandwidth is needed badly by all the players. We are not terribly far from saturating the frequencies. ATT really didn't want the customers of T-Mobile - they want the licenses to the radio waves. Additional customers are just an added attraction that softens the blow of the expense.

But still why should I have to pay more than double to ride on a big player's network when I can get all they have to offer using someone else's able to offer me the same thing on the same network for half the price? To me it is sort of like the drug industry. Why should we pay $150 for a prescription in the USA when I can go into Canada and get it for $35? It's the same thing after all...

It will be interesting to see how all this plays out over the next few years. Sprint - T-Mobile merger just makes sense (at least as much as it doesn't make sense.) T-Mobile will be going away one way or another and soon as they are bleeding money these days. The big city people are really going to start crying about slow downloads and dropped calls as we use more of the bandwidth for data and more people use it. We will probably end up with much more Wi-Fi and don't think WiMax is dead just yet...

We should enforce anti-trust laws to prevent mergers with stifle competition as this one would have. That's why we have anti-trust laws, they have not been enforced for decades adn we have an economic catastrophe to prove it.

#8 | Posted by danni

Danni there is a problem with that reasoning. Although I would like to agree with you, today we play on a GLOBAL scale today. Deutsche Telekom is a European Monster that came here to play. They are giving up here and I am not sure why to be honest. But that doesn't mean the Chinese or Indians won't come in and buy up our "Small" players like you would like to see and then we lose too.

Regulations have a way of stopping excessive billing though. Look at the break up of the original ATT and then the flood of resellers in the 80s/90s... Most are gone now as it was not viable long term.

Also look at the Auto Industry. The Chinese have been buying part suppliers like a child eats candy. Why? They have been made vulnerable and non-profitable by the Big 3. Look at the remnants of Delphi - purchased by Nextteer as an example. I kind of like the play on the Chinese name I have heard. They aren't a Tier 1 supplier any more they are the Next tier - China. Our money doesn't stay here - it goes to China faster when they own the company.

Last I checked, cellphone users would have still had Verizon, Sprint, US Cellular, Tracfone, MetroPCS, Cricket, and any number of local providers available to them.

#7 | Posted by JOE

I'm sure all of those services are available in big cities like Chicago. As it is, in many rural parts of the country only AT&T and Verizon are available (and sometimes only one of those), which already limits competition pretty severely.

Making room for Soros/Obama's Lightsquared.

Making room for Soros/Obama's Lightsquared.

#12 | Posted by KBM

Yeah man. It's all about George Soros, man. Good point.

Whew! T-Mobile's Customer Service would have been killed by this merger. Don't go T-Mobile!

It's been a couple of days since the Soros/Obama conspiracy has been mentioned.

I've got a T-Mobile prepaid account, I spend about $50 every four months. Since I live in a fringe area where the signal can drop out sometimes, half the time I am on AT&T towers and when I get into town, it reverts back to T-Mobile. They have a roaming agreement to I don't have to pay extra. When I get home I am back on AT&T. I hope things remain the same.

Whatever holds back the hegemony that Verizon is trying to achieve will be helpful to consumers.

We should enforce anti-trust laws to prevent mergers with stifle competition as this one would have. That's why we have anti-trust laws, they have not been enforced for decades adn we have an economic catastrophe to prove it.

#8 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2011-12-20 10:44 AM

Stop with the talking points and explain, in detail, how this would have sniffled competition.