Home  ›  News  ›

Verizon Wireless Snags Centennial Communications Assets

Article Comments  

all discussions

show all 14 replies

Acquisitions

Azeron

Aug 23, 2010, 9:10 AM
AT&T and VZW are each others favorite trading partners when divestitures are required as a condition of "mergers". Curious...
...
CellStudent

Aug 23, 2010, 9:24 AM
Azeron said:
AT&T and VZW are each others favorite trading partners when divestitures are required as a condition of "mergers". Curious...

Of course. Sprint has all the assets they want and T-mo is too broke to consider anything outside of urban areas.
...
Joshmo

Aug 23, 2010, 9:24 AM
they can afford to give top dollar....
...
dnbstyle29

Aug 23, 2010, 10:26 AM
I'm curious as to WHY they would rather trade this off to Verizon who would have to convert the network and phones from GSM to CDMA, resulting in what I would think would be a huge pain in the arse for all, why T-Mobile wasn't offered or picked up on the deal?
I would think that would have been a much easier alternative and transition...

...but like one of the other posters said, T-Mobile might be too broke to afford taking that over. maybe?
...
flip mode

Aug 23, 2010, 10:33 AM
doubtful tmobile is that broke when they're upgrading their network to HSPA+ . Let's just come out and say it. at&t and verizon have been in bed together with the fcc bumpin uglies for quite some time and it's obvious. When one has to give up turf it always goes to the other. Tmobile and the others aren't even thought off.
...
Scribed3d

Aug 23, 2010, 10:37 AM
Not quite...

This was a part of the capital swap associated with the Altell acquisition. This was mandated to them in order to complete that purchase. AT&T bought up some licenses that Verizon had to divest, and, in doing so, they had to swap some other licenses as well.
...
flip mode

Aug 23, 2010, 10:38 AM
also one more thing... even if it was about that verizon has the most money to put up. it shouldn't be about that. that's defeating the purpose of competition by handing it over to a company who is going to swallow up and eliminate the threat of tmobile or metro pcs or u.s cellular from getting bigger by even a hair. so this whole divesture garbage is just for pretense and they're just trying to pull the wool over people's eyes to be like "hey look we're competitive too" i call b.s ๐Ÿคจ
...
Scribed3d

Aug 23, 2010, 11:05 AM
Ok, I am trying to make sense of your post here.

First, this swap wasn't Verizon's or AT&T's idea. The Department of Justice forced them.

Second, this is what baffles me, is that the people with the most money aren't allowed to spend it? True, we don't want a true monopoly in the US for several reasons. However, I doubt it will ever come to that. There are dozens of network providers and dozens more MVNO's out there to ensure that competition exists. Sprint is celebrated for being the spectrum rich company due to its dealings. However, when Verizon or AT&T try to increase their spectrum holdings, its a negative?

I understand that we need to prevent these companies from overdoing things, but these small license exchanges are ...
(continues)
...
flip mode

Aug 23, 2010, 11:07 AM
anyways....so yea going back to what i was saying about corporate evil ๐Ÿ˜Ž
...
Scribed3d

Aug 23, 2010, 11:23 AM
๐Ÿคฃ
...
Slammer

Aug 23, 2010, 1:15 PM
Sprint is celebrated for being the spectrum rich company due to its dealings. However, when Verizon or AT&T try to increase their spectrum holdings, its a negative?

While this is a true statement, spectrum holdings are not a concern for Verizon , ATT or even the government. Verizon and ATT have enough spectrum share to cover the population. That's all they care about. Being the largest in subs and clientele, is better for business image than spectral holdings.

So a duopoly is a far safer bet for government to allow swapping of assets without some sort of backlash rather than a monopoly. If I thought for one minute that government officials weren't lining thier pockets with shareholdings of the two largest carriers, I think Sprint and...
(continues)
...
Azeron

Aug 23, 2010, 6:48 PM
No. DoJ forced the two companies to divest assets. No one forced them to sell to one another.
...
Azeron

Aug 23, 2010, 6:50 PM
Competition really does not exist. We are suffering under the duopoly of AT&T and VZW. Sprint and T-Mobile are no threat to those behemoths. Adding insult to injury is the fact that AT&T matches any plan Verizon comes out with in most cases.
...
Scribed3d

Aug 23, 2010, 10:57 AM
BTW, T-Mobile is far from broke. Anytime they need cash, they just need to poke their HQ in Germany and they have all they need. This is how they funded their HSPA+ rollout and how they are funding their LTE rollout. They are more solvent, by far, than Sprint is, for comparison.

T-Mobile is not the small fry on the block. Their US presence is comparatively small, but, internationally, they are one of the top carriers.
...
Azeron

Aug 23, 2010, 6:46 PM
T-Mobile is not broke. More likely T-Mobile would be disinterested in such rural spectrum. Why spend money to cover less pops?
...

This forum is closed.

Please log in to report a message to the moderator.

This forum is closed.


all discussions

Subscribe to Phone Scoop News with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Threads Follow @phonescoop on Mastodon Phone Scoop on Facebook Follow on Instagram

 

Playwire

All content Copyright 2001-2024 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.