It will likely stop the bleed of customers at Sprint leaving to go to AT&T or Verizon for better phones. It will likely increase Apple's market share in the US because loyal Sprint users will not have to buy an Android phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip
All I was saying in my original comment is that having the iPhone on 3 carriers won't do much.
First, it isn't a merger. A merger is when two companies essential get married and become one. Generally, the management from both companies largely stick around afterwards. The company is managed in accordance with the merger agreement. This is a sale. AT&T can do whatever it wants with T-Mobile afterwards including firing all of T-Mobile's managers and employees.
Second, the suit outright kills the sale if the Justice Department is dead set against the sale and wins in Court. The government's lawsuit rightfully claims nothing can save the deal because nothing can be altered to make the deal less anti-competive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
That's not true. The DOJ signed a suit against the merger. That does not out right kill it. AT&T will have to make some more concessions for it to go through.
Until I see a customer-taken image of some guy with a polo shirt with the word "Sprint" embroidered on it inside an Apple Store, this is no more proof of anything than anything else at this point.
But that's standard operating procedure for any Apple release, so it's basically common knowledge at this point.
I wonder if they will have COWs at strategic locations during the iPhone launch...
You never know where they might be... Sneaky telcos trying to give you an impression of a better signal during events, roadshows, launches and so on.
I'm sure the COWs don't come always as big as the one in the picture, they have smaller mobile COWs besides installing fixed repeaters and what nots too.
It isn't cheating to install repeaters. Reception in a mall often times isn't great for some reason. Maybe it is all the concrete and steel walls. I hate to tell you, but Verizon and AT&T also have them installed in the malls. T-Mobile too.
Cheaters Cheaters Cheaters... Nener nener nener... Cheaters never prosper...!
First, it isn't a merger. A merger is when two companies essential get married and become one. Generally, the management from both companies largely stick around afterwards. The company is managed in accordance with the merger agreement. This is a sale. AT&T can do whatever it wants with T-Mobile afterwards including firing all of T-Mobile's managers and employees.
Second, the suit outright kills the sale if the Justice Department is dead set against the sale and wins in Court. The government's lawsuit rightfully claims nothing can save the deal because nothing can be altered to make the deal less anti-competive.
I disagree. In almost all cases, if a deal isn't ultimately consummated then it was because the DOJ's demands were viewed as creating a non-desirable result. We don't know what AT&T considers desirable and non-desirable in their attempt to acquire T-Mobile. Heck, AT&T might not know yet, either.
Typically they do this because they are inside a building with many connections at once. I think all the phones in Apple Stores have voice and data connections so customers can test the features.
Fair enough but why would they need to install multiple carriers' repeaters? You don't get to select a different carrier on the demo phones.
Maybe part of the deal is that when you partner with Apple you get to put a repeater in their store and use their bandwidth which works inside the whole mall, not just the Apple Store.
That is a silly statement. If AT&T achieves regulatory approval, T-Mobile will cease to exist so nothing would change. The only chance T-Mobile customers have to get the iPhone officially is if AT&T doesn't get regulatory approval. Otherwise, they will no longer be T-Mobile customers.
I suspect T-Mobile is not going to get the iPhone now for one of two reasons or both reasons: Namely, 1) Apple wants to limit the amount of carriers the phone is being rolled out to for fear of being able to met demand, or 2) T-Mobile and AT&T have colluded to keep the iPhone off T-Mobile. It would look bad if all the sudden T-Mobile was looking competitive again.
Either reason for me stinks because I have used Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint. I hate them all.
probably the latter
if sprint gets the iphone they will steal T-Mo customers. the lawsuits will drag the merger out, t-mo's value will plummet and trigger the clause where AT&T doesn't have to pay a breakup fee. AT&T and other carriers will be buying pieces of T-Mo out of chapter 11 before it's all over.
The fact that Deutsche Telekom wants out of T-Mobile US is what makes the deal less anti-competitive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Second, the suit outright kills the sale if the Justice Department is dead set against the sale and wins in Court. The government's lawsuit rightfully claims nothing can save the deal because nothing can be altered to make the deal less anti-competive.
I disagree for two reasons. First, you start with a faulty premise. The reason Deutsche Telekom wants out is it is being way over paid. If you wanted to give me twice the market value for my home, I would want out as well. I would tell everybody in the world. Further, Deutsche Telekom has nothing to lose. It will make 6 billion on the deal if the deal doesn't close provided it does everything it can do to assist AT&T in trying to close the deal. For instance, claims it wants to sell. Considering all that, I wouldn't put much into what Deutsche Telekom wants. Finally, as stated in other posts, T-Mobile is profitable. It's profits merely are slowly dropping to to subscriber loss. However, T-Mobile's self described biggest problem likely will not be a problem in the near future. Namely, the iPhone will be available on T-Mobile if T-Mobile wants it to be.
Second, it is a faulty presumption that anti-trust laws are to benefit the companies. The Clayton Antitrust Act allows any member of the public to sue to stop a sale or merger that is viewed to be anti-competitive. Accordingly, anti-trust laws are to benefit the public. Selling T-Mobile to AT&T even if T-Mobile wants to be bought doesn't make the deal any less anti-competive from the perspective of the consumer or the remaining competitors like Sprint (Sprint is a member of the public, and is suing under the Clayton Act). As an interested party, Deutsche Telekom's views are pretty irrelevant as to whether the sale would be anti-competive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
The fact that Deutsche Telekom wants out of T-Mobile US is what
I wouldn't hold you being a salad shooter against you! Speaking of red hair, what is the difference between a red head and a lawyer? Answer: there are somethings even a lawyer will not do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuzDots
Are you sh***ing me!!!! There is someone still alive that can take a joke?
OMG, you and I need to get together for coffee - I have red hair!
Maybe we can talk about the rest of these "sensitive vegans."
In the Apple Store the demo phones allows you to either play with a Verizon or AT&T phone. The Store wants purchased, as well as demo phones, to work in the store. So, both Verizon and AT&T repeaters are necessary in the Apple Store. If Sprint gets added to the mix, it would make sense to add a Sprint repeater.
Many malls, have stores for all four carriers. So, these stores set up repeaters as well. Radio Shack for instance services all four carriers, so it would make sense that the store would need signals for all four carriers to be strong so that it can set service up for the customers.
Some malls also allow carriers to set up repeaters in the mall to facilitate shopping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Fair enough but why would they need to install multiple carriers'
repeaters? You don't get to select a different carrier on the demo phones.
Maybe part of the deal is that when you partner with Apple you get to put a repeater in their store and use their bandwidth which works inside the whole mall, not just the Apple Store.
Fair enough but why would they need to install multiple carriers' repeaters? You don't get to select a different carrier on the demo phones.
Maybe part of the deal is that when you partner with Apple you get to put a repeater in their store and use their bandwidth which works inside the whole mall, not just the Apple Store.
More likely as per the iPhone4 GSM the iPhone5 GSM/CDMA will be available unlocked or on plans from Sprint, Verizon and AT&T. In other words iPhone5 will be multi-carrier in the US from Day 1. As such, all three carriers will definitely want to have a pretty darn good signal in Apple Stores across the US... not for demo units but for the massive influx of new customers and the way they will be pummelling the telco networks right out of the box.
I disagree for two reasons. First, you start with a faulty premise. The reason Deutsche Telekom wants out is it is being way over paid. If you wanted to give me twice the market value for my home, I would want out as well. I would tell everybody in the world. Further, Deutsche Telekom has nothing to lose. It will make 6 billion on the deal if the deal doesn't close provided it does everything it can do to assist AT&T in trying to close the deal.
With all that being true, Deutsche Telekom wants out of T-Mobile USA.
Quote:
Second, it is a faulty presumption that anti-trust laws are to benefit the companies. The Clayton Antitrust Act allows any member of the public to sue to stop a sale or merger that is viewed to be anti-competitive. Accordingly, anti-trust laws are to benefit the public. Selling T-Mobile to AT&T even if T-Mobile wants to be bought doesn't make the deal any less anti-competive from the perspective of the consumer or the remaining competitors like Sprint (Sprint is a member of the public, and is suing under the Clayton Act). As an interested party, Deutsche Telekom's views are pretty irrelevant as to whether the sale would be anti-competive.
What does that matter if Deutsche Telekom wants out of T-Mobile USA? Is the government going to force them to keep T-Mobile open?
Comments
All I was saying in my original comment is that having the iPhone on 3 carriers won't do much.
Happy holiday!
Second, the suit outright kills the sale if the Justice Department is dead set against the sale and wins in Court. The government's lawsuit rightfully claims nothing can save the deal because nothing can be altered to make the deal less anti-competive.
That's not true. The DOJ signed a suit against the merger. That does not out right kill it. AT&T will have to make some more concessions for it to go through.
Until I see a customer-taken image of some guy with a polo shirt with the word "Sprint" embroidered on it inside an Apple Store, this is no more proof of anything than anything else at this point.
But that's standard operating procedure for any Apple release, so it's basically common knowledge at this point.
I wonder if they will have COWs at strategic locations during the iPhone launch...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cell_on_wheels.jpg
You never know where they might be... Sneaky telcos trying to give you an impression of a better signal during events, roadshows, launches and so on.
I'm sure the COWs don't come always as big as the one in the picture, they have smaller mobile COWs besides installing fixed repeaters and what nots too.
It isn't cheating to install repeaters. Reception in a mall often times isn't great for some reason. Maybe it is all the concrete and steel walls. I hate to tell you, but Verizon and AT&T also have them installed in the malls. T-Mobile too.
Cheaters Cheaters Cheaters... Nener nener nener... Cheaters never prosper...!
First, it isn't a merger. A merger is when two companies essential get married and become one. Generally, the management from both companies largely stick around afterwards. The company is managed in accordance with the merger agreement. This is a sale. AT&T can do whatever it wants with T-Mobile afterwards including firing all of T-Mobile's managers and employees.
Second, the suit outright kills the sale if the Justice Department is dead set against the sale and wins in Court. The government's lawsuit rightfully claims nothing can save the deal because nothing can be altered to make the deal less anti-competive.
I disagree. In almost all cases, if a deal isn't ultimately consummated then it was because the DOJ's demands were viewed as creating a non-desirable result. We don't know what AT&T considers desirable and non-desirable in their attempt to acquire T-Mobile. Heck, AT&T might not know yet, either.
Typically they do this because they are inside a building with many connections at once. I think all the phones in Apple Stores have voice and data connections so customers can test the features.
Fair enough but why would they need to install multiple carriers' repeaters? You don't get to select a different carrier on the demo phones.
Maybe part of the deal is that when you partner with Apple you get to put a repeater in their store and use their bandwidth which works inside the whole mall, not just the Apple Store.
Edit: Props to TBell above #41.
That is a silly statement. If AT&T achieves regulatory approval, T-Mobile will cease to exist so nothing would change. The only chance T-Mobile customers have to get the iPhone officially is if AT&T doesn't get regulatory approval. Otherwise, they will no longer be T-Mobile customers.
I suspect T-Mobile is not going to get the iPhone now for one of two reasons or both reasons: Namely, 1) Apple wants to limit the amount of carriers the phone is being rolled out to for fear of being able to met demand, or 2) T-Mobile and AT&T have colluded to keep the iPhone off T-Mobile. It would look bad if all the sudden T-Mobile was looking competitive again.
Either reason for me stinks because I have used Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint. I hate them all.
probably the latter
if sprint gets the iphone they will steal T-Mo customers. the lawsuits will drag the merger out, t-mo's value will plummet and trigger the clause where AT&T doesn't have to pay a breakup fee. AT&T and other carriers will be buying pieces of T-Mo out of chapter 11 before it's all over.
Second, the suit outright kills the sale if the Justice Department is dead set against the sale and wins in Court. The government's lawsuit rightfully claims nothing can save the deal because nothing can be altered to make the deal less anti-competive.
I am Polish. I pardon him. I love Polish jokes. I am a lawyer. I also love lawyer jokes. People are too sensitive nowadays.
Are you sh***ing me!!!! There is someone still alive that can take a joke?
OMG, you and I need to get together for coffee - I have red hair!
Maybe we can talk about the rest of these "sensitive vegans."
(obtw... red hair AND vegetarian)
Second, it is a faulty presumption that anti-trust laws are to benefit the companies. The Clayton Antitrust Act allows any member of the public to sue to stop a sale or merger that is viewed to be anti-competitive. Accordingly, anti-trust laws are to benefit the public. Selling T-Mobile to AT&T even if T-Mobile wants to be bought doesn't make the deal any less anti-competive from the perspective of the consumer or the remaining competitors like Sprint (Sprint is a member of the public, and is suing under the Clayton Act). As an interested party, Deutsche Telekom's views are pretty irrelevant as to whether the sale would be anti-competive.
The fact that Deutsche Telekom wants out of T-Mobile US is what
makes the deal less anti-competitive.
Are you sh***ing me!!!! There is someone still alive that can take a joke?
OMG, you and I need to get together for coffee - I have red hair!
Maybe we can talk about the rest of these "sensitive vegans."
(obtw... red hair AND vegetarian)
Many malls, have stores for all four carriers. So, these stores set up repeaters as well. Radio Shack for instance services all four carriers, so it would make sense that the store would need signals for all four carriers to be strong so that it can set service up for the customers.
Some malls also allow carriers to set up repeaters in the mall to facilitate shopping.
Fair enough but why would they need to install multiple carriers'
repeaters? You don't get to select a different carrier on the demo phones.
Maybe part of the deal is that when you partner with Apple you get to put a repeater in their store and use their bandwidth which works inside the whole mall, not just the Apple Store.
Edit: Props to TBell above #41.
(obtw... red hair AND vegetarian)
OMG... Marry me! (If you are female)
Fair enough but why would they need to install multiple carriers' repeaters? You don't get to select a different carrier on the demo phones.
Maybe part of the deal is that when you partner with Apple you get to put a repeater in their store and use their bandwidth which works inside the whole mall, not just the Apple Store.
Edit: Props to TBell above #41.
More likely as per the iPhone4 GSM the iPhone5 GSM/CDMA will be available unlocked or on plans from Sprint, Verizon and AT&T. In other words iPhone5 will be multi-carrier in the US from Day 1. As such, all three carriers will definitely want to have a pretty darn good signal in Apple Stores across the US... not for demo units but for the massive influx of new customers and the way they will be pummelling the telco networks right out of the box.
OMG... Marry me! (If you are female)
I'm glad you added the caveat... nope, sorry I'm a hardtail.
Didn't you read what TBell said... there are some things even a lawyer would not do!!
Go Figure, I never would have guessed that.
I disagree for two reasons. First, you start with a faulty premise. The reason Deutsche Telekom wants out is it is being way over paid. If you wanted to give me twice the market value for my home, I would want out as well. I would tell everybody in the world. Further, Deutsche Telekom has nothing to lose. It will make 6 billion on the deal if the deal doesn't close provided it does everything it can do to assist AT&T in trying to close the deal.
With all that being true, Deutsche Telekom wants out of T-Mobile USA.
Second, it is a faulty presumption that anti-trust laws are to benefit the companies. The Clayton Antitrust Act allows any member of the public to sue to stop a sale or merger that is viewed to be anti-competitive. Accordingly, anti-trust laws are to benefit the public. Selling T-Mobile to AT&T even if T-Mobile wants to be bought doesn't make the deal any less anti-competive from the perspective of the consumer or the remaining competitors like Sprint (Sprint is a member of the public, and is suing under the Clayton Act). As an interested party, Deutsche Telekom's views are pretty irrelevant as to whether the sale would be anti-competive.
What does that matter if Deutsche Telekom wants out of T-Mobile USA? Is the government going to force them to keep T-Mobile open?