Comments on: AT&T Letter Damages Case For T-Mobile Acquisition

By: Stuart Polansky

Stuart Polansky — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 03:55:00 +0000

THIS MERGER NEEDS TO STOP I FIRED AT&T FOR POOR SERVICE AND I LOVE MY T MOBILE SERVICE . ALSOTHIS WOULD MAKE ATT THE ONLY GSM CARRIER MONOPOLY

By: Stuart Polansky

Stuart Polansky — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 03:55:00 +0000

THIS MERGER NEEDS TO STOP I FIRED AT&T FOR POOR SERVICE AND I LOVE MY T MOBILE SERVICE . ALSOTHIS WOULD MAKE ATT THE ONLY GSM CARRIER MONOPOLY

By: Ian Kennedy

Ian Kennedy — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 05:10:00 +0000

It’s like nobody remembers what it was like before the split up of AT&T. They have the worst service and the worst network.

By: Elbert Lee

Elbert Lee — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 18:33:00 +0000

That’s the argument – more customers means more drive to improve service. Unfortunately, nothing in ATT’s past has indicated that they really WILL invest in the improving infrastructure. They continue to invest less than 1/3rd as Verizon and this proposal does not have hooks for ATT to reach performance benchmarks. As far as it goes, ATT can raise fates,declare HSPA+ as 4g (America’s largest 4g network), and remain years behind Verizon on LTE. Nobody is holding ATT into account to bemefit the customer

By: Eric Montz

Eric Montz — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 20:22:00 +0000

This isn’t contradictory…Yes it’ll cost them more, but it’s simply saying they’ll have more customers to use it and produce revenue. I don’t know why this is seeming like a bad thing…it makes perfect business sense. If a town of 1000 has 300 AT&T customers and 200 T-Mobile customers, obviously it would be better business sense to have 500 paying customers instead. The money doesn’t come in once, it comes in over time…so the whole 10x more customers statement is just ludacris.

And for those who still think T-Mobile and Sprint should combine, educate yourself first. They would have to spend billions upon billions to rebuild one of the networks to be compatible with the other. They would never see the return on that type of investment, nor do they even have the capital to be able to take on such a task.

By: Eric Montz

Eric Montz — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 20:22:00 +0000

By: Elbert Lee

Elbert Lee — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 17:40:00 +0000

Not a surprise. ATT’s past acquisitions were for the sole purpose of acquiring customer contracts and the their network remains the worst of the 4, with 1/3rd of the Verizon’s investment into its network. Now ATT is claiming spectrum limitations but are caught red handed with unused spectrum that it owns and the fact that they are 2 years behind Verizon on its lte network. For the 2nd largets carrier ro be that far behind irs competitors (including Sprint’s speedier Wimax[wasted of spectrum but valient attempt]) it should be a warning to call out the slimy politicians whomaccepted bribes prematurely supporting the merger without the facts. Now ATT must sell off some of its specgrum to finance the deal….another red flag that ATT is using to raise rates after they acquire TMobile and blame limited spectrum again

By: Geo Krunch

Geo Krunch — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 23:11:00 +0000

Yey!!! What a nice positive news for the consumers!!! I hope that everyone can now see that this merger was nothing but a deception from day one. The fact that there are a lot of people still keeping track of the situation for almost half a year now tells a lot about how much consumers don NOT want this merger to happen! Go spend your money some-place else, AT&T. If you’re not sure I can provide you with a bank account number to wire the 39Bills to LOL!!!! :)

By: Geo Krunch

Geo Krunch — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 23:04:00 +0000

It may buy them the subscribers and assets, etc, and provide a very nice deal for THEM, but it will NOT benefit the consumers in any way. In addition it contradicts 100% what they were saying in the beginning that they supposedly could NOT expand their network without buying T-Mobile, which we can all now see that they CAN - so that just proves yet another lie on behalf of AT&T and it shows that they are simply trying to become an anti-consumer and anti-competitive monopoly.

By: Kipp Iv

Kipp Iv — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 23:02:00 +0000

Worked real good for the Airline business! and the Gas companies! THE DEALS! Prices have never been so low

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:55:00 +0000

The last thing we need is for this merger to go through. It will all but end competition and cause prices to skyrocket. I was recently speaking to a T-Mobile store manager and he said whispers around were a large portion of T-Mobile employees would lose their jobs. Could just be speculation, but we all know mergers always equal layoffs. Not to mention, T-Mobile’s network is newest and most efficient. I have T-Mobile in Cleveland and have service 100% and my 3G averages almost 4.5mb/s, faster than both AT&T and Verizon. The last thing I want is to be forced to pay higher prices for AT&Ts far lesser service. No merger, no thank you!

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:49:00 +0000

Sprint is already drowning in debt and doesn’t have the necessary cash flow to even entertain the remote possiblity of another purchase. We all remember just how well they did at integrating Nextel into their business plan…

Plus, Sprint already has two major prepaid brands under its belt. And while Boost is the only brand holding Sprint afloat, adding another prepaid brand to their mix would be tough to do without sacrificing subscribers from its other brands.

By: dagobarbz

dagobarbz — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:23:00 +0000

“…our commitment to build out 4G LTE mobile broadband to 97% of the population…”Yeah, great. One encounter with ATT was all I needed to convince me that this corporation has lousy service and incompetent desk help. Not to mention if you call for tech support you get some guy named “John” in Mumbai. Maybe 97% of the population might agree that this “commitment” on ATT’s part is no bargain for consumers.

By: Vinay Pai

Vinay Pai — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:22:00 +0000

The only thing the letter proves is that the author of this article doesn’t understand how mergers and acquisitions work. Yes, their bid for T-Mobile might be 10x what it would cost to build out the network but that’s comparing apples to oranges. The 39 billion they pay for T-Mobile also buys them all of T-Mobile’s assets, subscribers, etc.

By: mike massey

mike massey — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:21:00 +0000

the response is outrageous. she is essentially pointing out that once they are a monopoly, they will have the ability to spend more money on serving people…. guess what that translates into? higher prices from less competition.

By: vdev

vdev — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:21:00 +0000

“creating many thousands of well-paying jobs”

Utter horseshit. We all know what happens with mergers and acquisitions such as these – consolidation of facilities and elimination of thousands of jobs. That’s the only way it can make economic sense.

This takeover should be killed.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:12:00 +0000

Good, the more the holes punched into this horrible purchase the better.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:08:00 +0000

This just shows how evil AT&T is. I knew all along that its motivation was not only spectrum WHOREding but also to eliminate a major carrier and competition in the wireless market. I hope the FCC does not approve the merger and force AT&T to pay 6 billion for all their troubles. If it is any company were to buy T-mobile, it should be Sprint since with that purchase, it would make 3 major carriers in terms of number of subscribers and would really help Sprint catch up with their 4G strategy.

By: Markus Dansby

Markus Dansby — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:06:00 +0000

They just want more market share so they can charge more, less comp = equals more money them on the backs of the people.

By: SparklingCyanide

SparklingCyanide — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 21:09:00 +0000

caught, ha!