It's not just getting more towers - T-mobile works on higher frequencies which require more towers and better placement, so using the towers will be very beneficial to AT&T.
AT&T will gain further with T-Mobile's 1900Mhz frequency (currently used for 2G). With free 'roaming' between networks until the networks themselves merge, they can refarm excess 1900Mhz to expand AT&T 3G. The 1700 will be interesting to watch as it's not very common. I'm not sure whether the 1700 can be split from the 2100 in any meaningful way - probably not. And of course, being good for AT&T is totally unrelated to being good for competition!
Actually, I didn't think about LTE - whatever AT&T plans will really be based on getting to where they want to be in 5 years, plus any easy improvements that can be easily added now. LTE supports the 1900Mhz band used by both AT&T and T-mobile (but not the 1700/2100 3G band T-mobile uses), so perhaps upgrading T-mobiles 1900Mhz 2G network directly to 1900Mhz LTE would be an interesting play for AT&T. (edit: in fact, maybe that's the reason they're announcing their LTE network under the merger would now reach much further).
The merger of Hutchison-Three and Vodafone networks in Australia has been slow. 9 months on and all we're noticing is worse performance on both networks, which still run independently. The Three network does roam to 2G Vodafone now (call drops, then you dial again on 2G). Our latest announcement is that they're going to replace a large swath of both networks with a new network vendor entirely, and in the process set up for merging the 2 networks into one and evolving with LTE options. Fixes can't come soon enough.
I hope the AT&T/T-mobile merger goes better - and that even short term improvements will be clear.
Think a little longer. If all we need is a data plan, how will the telecoms make up for the lost voice plan revenue? More and more of our voice traffic is moving to VoIP, and the telecoms don't want to let that happen.
Again, maybe I'm missing the point, but I think that's part of the natural evolution/progress of technology. To me it's similar to the people I know who don't have home phones because it's a lot easier to just have a cell phone, and that kind of changes in how people use technology happen a lot, it seems.
Saying this news ruined my day would be a minor over statement...
The US mobile market is already over consolidated and I really hope regulatory approval of the merger is denied... but based on the last 10 years I won't hold my breath for that.
I've always preferred T-Mobile's plans to ATT and VZ. They were always cheaper for me given my usage pattern... and they were friendly toward prepaid, something ATT has always poisoned.
My wishlist as conditions of merger:
#1) All handsets must be unlocked... even if there are no other US providers to move to we ouight to be able to sell our handsets freely.
#2) Overage charges per unit can't exceed the price per unit under the plan... ie. if I'm paying $0.10/minute for 500 minutes, my 501st minute can't be charged at more than $0.10... some for data if I'm paying $0.01/byte for 2GB, then each by beyond 2GB can't be charged at more than $0.01.
#3) Incoming SMS/MMS should be free... it's bad enough I get SMS spam, I shouldn't have to pay for it.
Saying this news ruined my day would be a minor over statement...
The US mobile market is already over consolidated and I really hope regulatory approval of the merger is denied... but based on the last 10 years I won't hold my breath for that.
../
Based on the last 10 years? How about based on the last 100 years? I can't think of any significant acquisition that was turned down where the resulting combination still represented less than 50% of the market.
Based on the last 10 years? How about based on the last 100 years? I can't think of any significant acquisition that was turned down where the resulting combination still represented less than 50% of the market.
In Switzerland, the merger of the number two and three MNOs (out of three) was blocked by the antitrust authorities last year. Their combined market share would have been 38%.
Again, maybe I'm missing the point, but I think that's part of the natural evolution/progress of technology. To me it's similar to the people I know who don't have home phones because it's a lot easier to just have a cell phone, and that kind of changes in how people use technology happen a lot, it seems.
I don't know what the prior poster is referring to with respect to Voice moving to VOIP when the back bone is owned by the Telcos.
They will continue to control the backbone. Unless someone manages to pour say $300 Billion in build out costs to compete VOIP providers are leasing on those backbones and thus the Telcos continue to make money.
Hardly. AT&T was a near-monopoly from BOTH a horizontal and vertical standpoint. That's a completely different situation from today. The primary action of the breakup of AT&T was to sever the vertical monopoly, separating local from long distance companies. The secondary action was to create the regional bells which were still monopolies in their region and, importantly, didn't compete with each other.
Instead of One Vertical Solution we went to 12 Regional Single Vertical Solutions and now are moving back down to Three Single Vertical Solutions.
Nothing has changed with regards to true competitive pricing and thus reducing the cost of consumption for the consumer.
Instead of overhauling MaBell and requiring a standard for which all telcos must allow cross competition in landlines and wireless we've seen an industry get subsidized by hundreds of billions in tax breaks resulting in fractured implementations that are incompatible and cost a consumer a huge fee to choose a solution they want.
Before the iPhone all telcos dictated the terms of what goes on a phone and how it will be subsidized.
Cingular was bleeding severely and they took Apple up on it's offer, but only after Apple got a 5 year deal.
Now that AT&T has a total debt to equity of 60:1 and Apple is nothing but a huge profit pool they can only do what Verizon did and that is to buy out more of the vertical solutions left on the market.
In the end, Congress will have to blow up this joke of a solution brought to the market by the Reagan Administration.
Based on the last 10 years? How about based on the last 100 years? I can't think of any significant acquisition that was turned down where the resulting combination still represented less than 50% of the market.
The only merger I recall being blocked in my adult lifetime was US Air/United around 2000... maybe late 90's...
It's pathetic because people embrace corporate rights at the expense of individual rights. Americans somehow support the worst laws favoring a class they will never be a part of thinking someday they will be a member of the one percent club that owns 90 percent of the wealth.
AT&T owes its existence to government regulation. It was a government created monopoly. Today it gets bigger based on government intervention. The air waves it uses are the public's airwaves. The government sold it a license practically for free and disallowed other players except a few other big money companies. This essentially has killed any meaningful competition and has stifled innovation. The government will approve the deal despite being anti-competive because AT&T is the company along with Verizon that gives all its customers information over to the government in violation of the fourth amendment without any type of court order.
AT&T really is a horrible company. In my area it was advertising $19.99 high speed internet on the radio, TV, and it's website. I signed up. After sending me the box, having a guy come out to hook up the Internet, and me canceling Comcast, AT&T cancelled the service without telling me saying it shouldn't have signed me up since the deal wasn't available in my area despite all the local advertising and its website OKing my address for the deal. Instead of doing the right thing and honoring the deal it was still advertising in my area, AT&T told me I needed to pay to have the box send back or I'd be charged.
T-Mobile has always been a pleasant company to work with. Many T-Mobile people are going to lose their jobs, many customers will be sad (myself included), all to make a soulless company get bigger.
I hope Virgin comes up with a way to use my iPhone on its network.
Quote:
Originally Posted by autism109201
I know? this country is mostly pathetic when it comes to technology anyway.
But I was talking only about the United States, since this affects people in the US only.
In Switzerland, the merger of the number two and three MNOs (out of three) was blocked by the antitrust authorities last year. Their combined market share would have been 38%.
So if the #2 and #3 MNOs together would be 38%, then maybe you can tell us how the #1 MNO was allowed to reach something approaching 60%?
Instead of One Vertical Solution we went to 12 Regional Single Vertical Solutions and now are moving back down to Three Single Vertical Solutions.
That's not true at all. The regional Bell companies were NOT allowed to offer long distance service until much later and only after the long distance providers became large.
My wife is on T-Mobile and hates their service. We were waiting for her contract to end to move to Verizon but AT&T will do nicely as their service is good where we live.
We are STILL paying for both sending AND receiving calls on cell phones! That is INSANE!
I was in Canada a few years ago and was AMAZED that I had to pay for calls RECEIVED (I had to use a PAYG tariff). It made me think twice before answering any call!
In Canada when Rogers bought Microcell (the company behind Fido) they actually opted to keep both the Rogers and Fido trademarks, so they could present different market strategies. I don't know whether this was their choice or the government's.
At that time Rogers and Fido were the only GSM providers in Canada. Now all the carriers have GSM 3G capability. Bell and Telus, two of the other competitors share their towers and often seem as if they don't wish to compete with each other, when plans are compared.
I'm Mr. Libertarian, and yes, politicians tend to be idiots about economic decisions. But they're in this market already, so they might as well try to move motivations toward where they help the market rather than cripple it. There are good and powerful restrictions that they could place on this deal to get the US out of the 2 year lockup/free phone for everyone trap that we're in.
Tell me what you think about a rule to force providers to lower prices for people using their own phones? It seems to me like you could design a rule that forces ATT to make it clear how much your subsidy is when you buy a new phone, and then, how much of any subsidy you pay down every month in a given plan.
Say you buy an iPhone for $200. ATT must tell you that the original price was $599, and you have a $399 subsidy. You then have your choice of plans. $110 ($25), $90 ($18), $70 ($12) and $60 ($10) with the parenthetical number being the amount that you pay down monthly, or would save if bringing your own phone. When you get a subsidized phone, you are effectively getting a 2 year loan from ATT. Mortgage companies are forced to tell you APRs, why shouldn't cell providers be forced to be more open about what you're actually paying for?
This removes the nitty gritty of pricing decisions from the government, which of course they couldn't do anyway. ATT still has full control over pricing, but if it wants to offer subsidized phones, it is forced to make it clear how much that subsidy is, so people who don't want subsidized service can make a choice. The key is finding a way to write it so that it is self-enforcing. ATT must want to reveal the information to the customers who want the subsidy despite the small number of people who will stop receiving it.
Do you think such a design would work?
Mr. Libertarian wants financial industry-level disclosures required of the telecoms?? I'm going to have to check my encyclopedia...
this will only mean higher prices and more hidden fees. There has never been a huge merger like this that has been good for consumers. The merger will definitely go through though since AT&T owns enough members of Congress and the regulatory agencies to make sure it is approved.
So if the #2 and #3 MNOs together would be 38%, then maybe you can tell us how the #1 MNO was allowed to reach something approaching 60%?
Well, three national wireless licences were offered by the government, three companies bought them. The one which has started off as the Swiss equivalent of Ma'Bell, grabed the largest market share due to having the largest customer base and the deepest pockets. So, instead of splitting up the original monopoly company, the government allowed new entrants that, with regulatory help, managed to reduce the market share of the incumbent to about 60%.
Comments
It's not just getting more towers - T-mobile works on higher frequencies which require more towers and better placement, so using the towers will be very beneficial to AT&T.
AT&T will gain further with T-Mobile's 1900Mhz frequency (currently used for 2G). With free 'roaming' between networks until the networks themselves merge, they can refarm excess 1900Mhz to expand AT&T 3G. The 1700 will be interesting to watch as it's not very common. I'm not sure whether the 1700 can be split from the 2100 in any meaningful way - probably not. And of course, being good for AT&T is totally unrelated to being good for competition!
Actually, I didn't think about LTE - whatever AT&T plans will really be based on getting to where they want to be in 5 years, plus any easy improvements that can be easily added now. LTE supports the 1900Mhz band used by both AT&T and T-mobile (but not the 1700/2100 3G band T-mobile uses), so perhaps upgrading T-mobiles 1900Mhz 2G network directly to 1900Mhz LTE would be an interesting play for AT&T. (edit: in fact, maybe that's the reason they're announcing their LTE network under the merger would now reach much further).
The merger of Hutchison-Three and Vodafone networks in Australia has been slow. 9 months on and all we're noticing is worse performance on both networks, which still run independently. The Three network does roam to 2G Vodafone now (call drops, then you dial again on 2G). Our latest announcement is that they're going to replace a large swath of both networks with a new network vendor entirely, and in the process set up for merging the 2 networks into one and evolving with LTE options. Fixes can't come soon enough.
I hope the AT&T/T-mobile merger goes better - and that even short term improvements will be clear.
Think a little longer. If all we need is a data plan, how will the telecoms make up for the lost voice plan revenue? More and more of our voice traffic is moving to VoIP, and the telecoms don't want to let that happen.
Again, maybe I'm missing the point, but I think that's part of the natural evolution/progress of technology. To me it's similar to the people I know who don't have home phones because it's a lot easier to just have a cell phone, and that kind of changes in how people use technology happen a lot, it seems.
The US mobile market is already over consolidated and I really hope regulatory approval of the merger is denied... but based on the last 10 years I won't hold my breath for that.
I've always preferred T-Mobile's plans to ATT and VZ. They were always cheaper for me given my usage pattern... and they were friendly toward prepaid, something ATT has always poisoned.
My wishlist as conditions of merger:
#1) All handsets must be unlocked... even if there are no other US providers to move to we ouight to be able to sell our handsets freely.
#2) Overage charges per unit can't exceed the price per unit under the plan... ie. if I'm paying $0.10/minute for 500 minutes, my 501st minute can't be charged at more than $0.10... some for data if I'm paying $0.01/byte for 2GB, then each by beyond 2GB can't be charged at more than $0.01.
#3) Incoming SMS/MMS should be free... it's bad enough I get SMS spam, I shouldn't have to pay for it.
Saying this news ruined my day would be a minor over statement...
The US mobile market is already over consolidated and I really hope regulatory approval of the merger is denied... but based on the last 10 years I won't hold my breath for that.
../
Based on the last 10 years? How about based on the last 100 years? I can't think of any significant acquisition that was turned down where the resulting combination still represented less than 50% of the market.
Based on the last 10 years? How about based on the last 100 years? I can't think of any significant acquisition that was turned down where the resulting combination still represented less than 50% of the market.
In Switzerland, the merger of the number two and three MNOs (out of three) was blocked by the antitrust authorities last year. Their combined market share would have been 38%.
Again, maybe I'm missing the point, but I think that's part of the natural evolution/progress of technology. To me it's similar to the people I know who don't have home phones because it's a lot easier to just have a cell phone, and that kind of changes in how people use technology happen a lot, it seems.
I don't know what the prior poster is referring to with respect to Voice moving to VOIP when the back bone is owned by the Telcos.
http://www.telecomramblings.com/netw...map-resources/
They will continue to control the backbone. Unless someone manages to pour say $300 Billion in build out costs to compete VOIP providers are leasing on those backbones and thus the Telcos continue to make money.
Well, now...can't wait for the commercial with the girl in the pink dress. I wonder where her lipstick will end up?
EXACTLY???
Hardly. AT&T was a near-monopoly from BOTH a horizontal and vertical standpoint. That's a completely different situation from today. The primary action of the breakup of AT&T was to sever the vertical monopoly, separating local from long distance companies. The secondary action was to create the regional bells which were still monopolies in their region and, importantly, didn't compete with each other.
Instead of One Vertical Solution we went to 12 Regional Single Vertical Solutions and now are moving back down to Three Single Vertical Solutions.
Nothing has changed with regards to true competitive pricing and thus reducing the cost of consumption for the consumer.
Instead of overhauling MaBell and requiring a standard for which all telcos must allow cross competition in landlines and wireless we've seen an industry get subsidized by hundreds of billions in tax breaks resulting in fractured implementations that are incompatible and cost a consumer a huge fee to choose a solution they want.
Before the iPhone all telcos dictated the terms of what goes on a phone and how it will be subsidized.
Cingular was bleeding severely and they took Apple up on it's offer, but only after Apple got a 5 year deal.
Now that AT&T has a total debt to equity of 60:1 and Apple is nothing but a huge profit pool they can only do what Verizon did and that is to buy out more of the vertical solutions left on the market.
In the end, Congress will have to blow up this joke of a solution brought to the market by the Reagan Administration.
Based on the last 10 years? How about based on the last 100 years? I can't think of any significant acquisition that was turned down where the resulting combination still represented less than 50% of the market.
The only merger I recall being blocked in my adult lifetime was US Air/United around 2000... maybe late 90's...
AT&T owes its existence to government regulation. It was a government created monopoly. Today it gets bigger based on government intervention. The air waves it uses are the public's airwaves. The government sold it a license practically for free and disallowed other players except a few other big money companies. This essentially has killed any meaningful competition and has stifled innovation. The government will approve the deal despite being anti-competive because AT&T is the company along with Verizon that gives all its customers information over to the government in violation of the fourth amendment without any type of court order.
AT&T really is a horrible company. In my area it was advertising $19.99 high speed internet on the radio, TV, and it's website. I signed up. After sending me the box, having a guy come out to hook up the Internet, and me canceling Comcast, AT&T cancelled the service without telling me saying it shouldn't have signed me up since the deal wasn't available in my area despite all the local advertising and its website OKing my address for the deal. Instead of doing the right thing and honoring the deal it was still advertising in my area, AT&T told me I needed to pay to have the box send back or I'd be charged.
T-Mobile has always been a pleasant company to work with. Many T-Mobile people are going to lose their jobs, many customers will be sad (myself included), all to make a soulless company get bigger.
I hope Virgin comes up with a way to use my iPhone on its network.
I know? this country is mostly pathetic when it comes to technology anyway.
But I was talking only about the United States, since this affects people in the US only.
But you're right? it's pathetic over here.
In Switzerland, the merger of the number two and three MNOs (out of three) was blocked by the antitrust authorities last year. Their combined market share would have been 38%.
So if the #2 and #3 MNOs together would be 38%, then maybe you can tell us how the #1 MNO was allowed to reach something approaching 60%?
Instead of One Vertical Solution we went to 12 Regional Single Vertical Solutions and now are moving back down to Three Single Vertical Solutions.
That's not true at all. The regional Bell companies were NOT allowed to offer long distance service until much later and only after the long distance providers became large.
We are STILL paying for both sending AND receiving calls on cell phones! That is INSANE!
I was in Canada a few years ago and was AMAZED
At that time Rogers and Fido were the only GSM providers in Canada. Now all the carriers have GSM 3G capability. Bell and Telus, two of the other competitors share their towers and often seem as if they don't wish to compete with each other, when plans are compared.
I'm Mr. Libertarian, and yes, politicians tend to be idiots about economic decisions. But they're in this market already, so they might as well try to move motivations toward where they help the market rather than cripple it. There are good and powerful restrictions that they could place on this deal to get the US out of the 2 year lockup/free phone for everyone trap that we're in.
Tell me what you think about a rule to force providers to lower prices for people using their own phones? It seems to me like you could design a rule that forces ATT to make it clear how much your subsidy is when you buy a new phone, and then, how much of any subsidy you pay down every month in a given plan.
Say you buy an iPhone for $200. ATT must tell you that the original price was $599, and you have a $399 subsidy. You then have your choice of plans. $110 ($25), $90 ($18), $70 ($12) and $60 ($10) with the parenthetical number being the amount that you pay down monthly, or would save if bringing your own phone. When you get a subsidized phone, you are effectively getting a 2 year loan from ATT. Mortgage companies are forced to tell you APRs, why shouldn't cell providers be forced to be more open about what you're actually paying for?
This removes the nitty gritty of pricing decisions from the government, which of course they couldn't do anyway. ATT still has full control over pricing, but if it wants to offer subsidized phones, it is forced to make it clear how much that subsidy is, so people who don't want subsidized service can make a choice. The key is finding a way to write it so that it is self-enforcing. ATT must want to reveal the information to the customers who want the subsidy despite the small number of people who will stop receiving it.
Do you think such a design would work?
Mr. Libertarian wants financial industry-level disclosures required of the telecoms?? I'm going to have to check my encyclopedia...
That said, I don't disagree with you haha.
So if the #2 and #3 MNOs together would be 38%, then maybe you can tell us how the #1 MNO was allowed to reach something approaching 60%?
Well, three national wireless licences were offered by the government, three companies bought them. The one which has started off as the Swiss equivalent of Ma'Bell, grabed the largest market share due to having the largest customer base and the deepest pockets. So, instead of splitting up the original monopoly company, the government allowed new entrants that, with regulatory help, managed to reduce the market share of the incumbent to about 60%.