AT&T to acquire TMobile for S39 billion

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 81
    mgl323mgl323 Posts: 247member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ptfern View Post


    My question is how will Apple react to this? Will we see a LTE iPhone in the works sooner?



    Probably not, maybe a HSPA+ iPhone?
  • Reply 42 of 81
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post


    While this makes sense on some fronts, the problem will be even LESS competition, ultimately meaning higher prices for consumer, I would venture.



    Less competition? There has never been ANY COMPETITION. They price point the same. The competition has been AT THE SMARTPHONE, not the Carrier.



    The only way there will ever be Competition is for the Government to set a fixed high standard by which all players must adhere to and then compete on price and services for the Consumer's dollar.



    It's never actually happened which is why the US has a synthetic capitalist society.
  • Reply 43 of 81
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cameronj View Post


    You probably shouldn't check out the numbers behind how well our government is currently providing value for the money we lavish on it (taken by gunpoint).



    You should probably keep whining while this country is collecting an all-time low in corporate taxes, but it's clearly the fault of Government and not the bribes of Corporations.



    Keep digging a hole and voting in family values crack pots. They continue to erode your perceived freedoms and redirect you to the Democrats for wanting women's rights to remain as the reason you can't control your woman.



    Not one Republican President has balanced a budget since Eisenhower. Only Democrats have balanced the budget, and would have done so more if it weren't Reagan, Bush, Bush2.0 talking about no more taxes while bleeding the nation into the red.
  • Reply 44 of 81
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by StLBluesFan View Post


    Oh yeah, let's get those politicians more involved in the marketplace! That always works out well, doesn't it?



    Are you seriously taking the side of corporate monopolies? That would mean you are against competition and capitalism. Remember, AT&T was broken for EXACTLY this same thing!



    This sucks. I am already appalled at the texting costs. I never got a texting plan but more and more people are sending me texts and not listening when I tell them to just friggin call me, or email me, now that I have a smartphone, otherwise it costs 20¢ each message. Now this. I'm sure this merger will be bad, just not sure how though. Probably higher prices. After all, you have to pay for all the "quality" that this large merger brings you the "customer". \
  • Reply 45 of 81
    ptfernptfern Posts: 17member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mgl323 View Post


    Probably not, maybe a HSPA+ iPhone?



    I thought that the current iPhone was already HSPA+ capable?
  • Reply 46 of 81
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    i'm really worried about the FCC's conditions to this deal. You could see them require AT&T to divest territories to regional GSM carriers or even Sprint to keep a balance. You could see most of the Midwest being Divested to iWireless and Cincy Bell and their customers left unable to get iPhones.
  • Reply 47 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cameronj View Post


    Since the 80s, NZ has seen steadily decreasing unemployment until the world recession in 2009.



    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Econ...spx?Symbol=NZD



    Moves toward market economies are vastly positive, but those who are less skilled and were supported on the teat of the government under socialism may very well be hurt by it, as they should be. Is that you?



    Right on!!
  • Reply 48 of 81
    mgl323mgl323 Posts: 247member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ptfern View Post


    I thought that the current iPhone was already HSPA+ capable?



    Not yet, iPhone 4 currently support HSDPA and HSUPA.
  • Reply 49 of 81
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    This is a joyous day.



    A company this large can only be made to be forced to split up all the quicker.



    We may have actual competition again soon, boys!
  • Reply 50 of 81
    mac_dogmac_dog Posts: 932member
    this really sucks. i was perfectly content with my t-mobile service.



    now that at&t is at the helm, it'll all go downhill from here.
  • Reply 51 of 81
    ptfernptfern Posts: 17member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mgl323 View Post


    Not yet, iPhone 4 currently support HSDPA and HSUPA.





    Isn't it already in use in the Verizon iPhone 4 model, which latently supports HSPA+?
  • Reply 52 of 81
    rot'napplerot'napple Posts: 1,839member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by robbydek View Post


    Lately, I'm not so ensure about the government enforcing laws. I'm hoping they prove me wrong this time.



    What does a supplement drink have to do with the government enforcing laws. However, personally, I like the milk chocolate flavored Ensure the best!



    (I know, I'm a ass, but I can't help being an ass... It's in my DNAss genetic make-up.)



    Kind of like in the movie Smokey and the Bandit where Sherrif Justice is told that an event isn't germain to the situation, and Justice says, "The GD Germans ain't got nothing to do with it!



    I wonder if there will be a commercial where that T-Mobile girl and that iPhone guy get hitched?!



    The bad thing about this... When I get mad and tell them I'm leaving for another carrier, my options will be one less!
  • Reply 53 of 81
    rot'napplerot'napple Posts: 1,839member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    You should probably keep whining while this country is collecting an all-time low in corporate taxes, but it's clearly the fault of Government and not the bribes of Corporations.



    Keep digging a hole and voting in family values crack pots. They continue to erode your perceived freedoms and redirect you to the Democrats for wanting women's rights to remain as the reason you can't control your woman.



    Not one Republican President has balanced a budget since Eisenhower. Only Democrats have balanced the budget, and would have done so more if it weren't Reagan, Bush, Bush2.0 talking about no more taxes while bleeding the nation into the red.



    But of all those Republicans President's, pretty much all had Democratics in control of Congress, which has the power of the purse... When Clinton wasn't getting his wick shined by a 24 year old intern, he had to balance the budget, Republicans were in control of Congress!
  • Reply 54 of 81
    Not a bad price, per some quick, back-of-the-envelope numbers.



    $39B for ~34M subscribers implies $1100/subscriber. If they can get cash flows of $90 per subscriber per year (i.e., $7.50/mo) and T-Mobile's cost of capital of 8%, the price is 'fair' (90/0.08 =$1125) even assuming those cash flows say flat.



    I wouldn't be surprised if ATT's stock price were to rise tomorrow.
  • Reply 55 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by autism109201 View Post


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gabberattack View Post


    LTE is for data only. The voice is still via GSM network.



    I don't know?I've thought for a while that the future of these telecoms will be data, since a lot of people use VoIP on their smartphones, and you can get way better international rates. Though that wouldn't be for everyone, of course.



    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.
  • Reply 56 of 81
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,166member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ptfern View Post


    My question is how will Apple react to this? Will we see a LTE iPhone in the works sooner?



    For sure HSPA+ first then LTE in 2012 maybe.
  • Reply 57 of 81
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by justflybob View Post






    So apple gets sprint. ?
  • Reply 58 of 81
    djzappdjzapp Posts: 9member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mcarling View Post


    Three is far from a monopoly? No, three is very nearly a monopoly. Fewer competitors than about eight is a problem.



    How is that there are only 3 providers, Now I understand some that I will list are part of a larger conglomerate but still they operate under a different structure. Every one of the listed carriers below has an opportunity to expand and become a national provider, They just need to step up to the plate



    List of US Wireless Communications Service Providers:



    Some are regional, some National, I hardly think there is a monopoly!!



    7-Eleven Speak Out Wireless

    Airlink Mobile

    Alaska Communications Systems

    Alaska Digitel

    Alaska Wireless

    Amerilink Wireless

    Appalachian Wireless

    ASTAC

    AT&T Mobility

    BeyondMobile

    Blue Wireless

    Bluegrass Cellular

    Boost Mobile

    Broadpoint

    call4care

    Cap Rock Cellular

    Carolina West Wireless

    Cellcom

    Cellular South

    Chariton Valley Wireless

    Cincinnati Bell Wireless

    Clear and/or Clearwire

    Clear Talk

    CloseCall America

    Commnet Wireless

    Consumer Cellular

    Cordova Wireless

    Corr Wireless

    Common Cents Mobile

    Cox Wireless\t

    Credo Mobile

    Cricket Communications

    DTC Wireless

    Eclipse Mobile

    Earthtones

    Einstein Wireless

    Element Mobile

    Epic PCS

    Fuzion Mobile

    GCI Wireless

    Golden State Cellular

    GTC Wireless

    i-wireless

    Immix

    Indigo Wireless

    Jitterbug Wireless

    Jolt Wireless

    KTC

    Leap Wireless

    Liberty Wireless

    Lightyear Wireless

    Locus Mobile

    Long Lines Wireless

    Lucky Wireless

    MetroPCS

    Mid-Tex Cellular

    Movida Wireless

    NEP Wireless

    Nex-Tech Wireless

    nTelos

    Page Plus Cellular

    Pine Cellular

    Pioneer Cellular

    Plateau Wireless

    PlatinumTel Prepaid Wireless

    Pocket Communications

    Pure Mobile

    Pure Prepaid

    Pure TalkUSA

    Revol Wireless

    ReadyMobile

    Simmetry

    Simple Mobile

    Shaka Mobile

    SouthernLINC

    Sprint Nextel

    Stelera Wireless

    STI Mobile

    Syringa Wireless

    TerreStar\t

    Thumb Cellular

    T-Mobile USA

    TracFone Wireless

    Tru

    Trumpet Mobile

    Túyo Mobile

    Union Wireless

    U.S. Cellular

    Cellular Corporation

    Verizon Wireless

    Viaero Wireless

    Virgin Mobile USA

    West Central Wireless

    Westlink

    CREDO Moble

    XIT Communications

    Xtreme Mobile
  • Reply 59 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by InfoDave View Post


    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.



    Yes, they'll need to reinvent their charging methodology. Voice traffic in GSM uses a 9.6Kbps data connection. In comparison to the amount of data phones are throwing around, voice is becoming a tiny impact on the network.



    It will, at some point, make more sense to make voice calls free, but charge for data. The problem with charging for data though is people don't know how much they've used in 10 minutes, where with a call that's THEORETICALLY a much clearer answer. Of course, with some complicated phone plans and caps it can be hard to work out anything.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lowededwookie View Post


    Capitalism doesn't work and has never worked. It just serves to screw the little people and make the already rich even richer.



    I disagree. Competition forces efficiency and other improvements to a system, where socialism (etc) relies on natural improvements. But for capitalism to work it has to be possible to fail. If a company is so big that it can run large parts of itself inefficiently without 'dying', then the natural pressure to improve is removed.



    We probably need 10 competitors in most fields (Nokia and Motorola should never merge!). Any company in an established field shouldn't have more than 20 (or 30%?) of the market - but splitting a company isn't a punishment, just a natural evolution. But that's not the way it works... and it's a much tougher call on cable & telco companies where duplicating massive infrastructure really can be way too inefficient for the competitive gains to alleviate.



    I would think that a lot of AT&T's gains from this merger could have come from renting space on T-Mobile towers. 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!
  • Reply 60 of 81
    hudson1hudson1 Posts: 800member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post


    Are you seriously taking the side of corporate monopolies? That would mean you are against competition and capitalism. Remember, AT&T was broken for EXACTLY this same thing!



    This sucks. I am already appalled at the texting costs. I never got a texting plan but more and more people are sending me texts and not listening when I tell them to just friggin call me, or email me, now that I have a smartphone, otherwise it costs 20¢ each message. Now this. I'm sure this merger will be bad, just not sure how though. Probably higher prices. After all, you have to pay for all the "quality" that this large merger brings you the "customer". \



    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.