Taking another shot at AT&T's proposed acquisition of T-Mobile, Sprint has submitted a plan to the Federal Communications Commission that details how AT&T can use its existing resources to expand its Long Term Evolution network without the need to buy T-Mobile. According to Sprint, AT&T can increase its network capacity by 600% if it deploys LTE over its current unused spectrum assets, increase the density of coverage with macro and small cells, and make more efficient use of its spectrum assets by upgrading existing network technology to LTE. In a statement, Sprint said, "Sprint's filing demonstrates that AT&T's purported rationale for the proposed merger — that there is no other way to meet its projected data service demand growth — is simply unfounded. AT&T could increase its capacity by developing its warehoused spectrum, accelerating its 4G network buildout, and implementing a more efficient network architecture. AT&T has not, and cannot, demonstrate that its proposed takeover of T-Mobile is in the public interest." The proposed acquisition is currently under FCC and DoJ review.
Really?? telling another company how to manage their network? Why don't you start to manage your own instead of outsourcing it? and to improve your coverage and network because my Evo 4G demo line coverage is crap compared to my VZW iphone 4.
Sprint is trying to save their business by doing this. If at&t does join with T-Mobile, they will be a superpower, and Sprint's business will suffer, you can not deny that. Any other company would do the same.
To manage a business, there needs to be some discipline in knowing where to save costs and increase them. Sprint outsourcing their network, is a fine example of knowing where to cut and save costs. Thus meaning knowing how to manage their network eff... (continues)
Ok, a little late to this party but better late than never. But seriously, Sprint is no where close to telling AT&T how to manage its network. What they have done is pointed out what can best be described as a general guideline on how to solve their... (continues)
Sprint is not telling another company how to manage its network. Frankly, who gives a *Bleep* how AT&T manages its resources? What Sprint has done (and quite effectively judging by your mature reaction) is expose AT&T's blatant lie that it somehow N... (continues)
I got to hand it to Sprint-Nextel. There customer service may not be the shining example of customer service. But, they do drive home a point. They are afraid as are many other Cellular companies that AT$T may once again become the monopoly they once were in the "Pre-Breakup" years.
And rightfully so. Nothing good came from AT$T being the monster network they were. And everyone is trying to prevent history repeating it's self. I applaud Sprint, Verizon, MetroPCS, Cricket and all the other companies for trying to point out this glaring fact that everyone is apparently missing.
...pointing out anything. One. They just benefited from merging with Alltel which should not have been allowed. It would be hypocritical for them to object to AT&T doing the exact same thing with T-Mobile. Two. Verizon is licking its chops knowin... (continues)
Let's say that the merger doesn't get the FCC's and DOJ's approval. Five years down the road, T-Mobile finds themselves in the same position and puts themselves up for bid. AT&T by that point has garnered an even larger portion of market share, thus decides to back off and not let history repeat itself, and VZW does the same (seeing as they don't wish to give billions in cash and spectrum should the deal fall through).
Sprint is the only carrier capable and willing to buy T-Mobile. Do they do it? If so, will Americans, businesses, and the government have a memory strong enough to remember Sprint's avid opposition of a three-carrier industry? If so, they could potentially be screwing their future selves by opposing this so strongly.
It depends on the three carrier's relative strengths. If there are three roughly equal carriers then three may be a viable number. One could argue that its a different story when 2 of those carriers would have over 80% of the market.
Sprint is not opposing a 3 major carrier world, they are opposing a world where 2 carriers would have 80% of the business. If your situation did occur than it would be more aligned to having a relatively equal share of subscribers between 3 carriers.... (continues)
Actually no they don't. I have sprint and I never get dropped calls, problems on my bill, overcharges, lose signal, have muffled voice calls, etc... It all depends on where you live man, AT&T here where I live might as well sell paperweights
Putting aside the common sense that needed to be smacked into Sprint regarding Customer Service, they are presenting a clearly formed opinion that any objective person in the industry would concur with.
AT&T's strength largely has been in the marketing department, rather that the network. Everytime I see a new ad on tv the BS astounds me. Now they are calling themselves "THE NETWORK", hmm where did I hear that before...
Its almost like they will do anything to deflect from their problems (Hire more lobbyists, more ad buys, buy up a smaller competitor) rather than invest a cent in their own network equipment. Comparing AT&T to VZW they are actually a much larger company, yet the way dollars move about take a much different path.
Why do people make jokes like "Hey isnt government intelligence an oxymoron?" It's becuase it is. When something makes sence and appears to be clearcut, it never is in the minds of politicians. We all knew that at&t had... (continues)