Phone Scoop

printed July 31, 2015
See this page online at:
http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/discuss.php?fm=m&ff=8773&fh=2937739

Home  ›  News  ›

AT&T Responds to Sprint Lawsuit

Article Comments  

all discussions

Sprint new motto:

MrGuder

Sep 6, 2011, 6:35 PM
"If at first you don't succeed, sue the competition!"

Sad, just sad. Sprint is pathetic. All they care about is their own agenda and are no better than AT&T, Verizon or any other telecommunications company. By this reckoning should HP sue Google because they compete with Android? Should BMW sue Honda? Sue sue sue! Sounds like a bunch of greedy jews. Oh wait a minute!

Anyway Sprint is being anti-competitive. If they want more of the pie they need to improve their services. They can start by making better business decisions and stop abandoning technologies. They need to learn how to operate a business.

There's a reason why Verizon and AT&T have 100 million subs and Sprint has far less. That's because Sprint more or less sucks. Bitt...
(continues)
...
Versed

Sep 6, 2011, 6:50 PM
I couldn't agree with you more. There maybe valid arguments against this merger, but Sprint is nothing but cry babies. They wanted TMO, they couldn't make the nut, nor do what it would have taken for it. So, if they can't nobody should.

Whats next, are they going to cry to the government that people shouldn't be allowed to churn off of them?
...
craigashliegh

Sep 7, 2011, 10:27 AM
Laughing bahaha, agreed.Just get over it people!
...
ReaperXero

Sep 6, 2011, 6:57 PM
"Why be competitive, if we can just buy the competition out?"
...
vvelez

Sep 6, 2011, 7:06 PM
How did they get the money to buy the competition out?
...
WiWavelength

Sep 6, 2011, 10:27 PM
vvelez said:
How did they get the money to buy the competition out?


It is called monopoly money, Regional Bell Operating Company (RBOC) monopoly money. Look into it.

Do you think it just coincidence that two Baby Bells have swallowed up nearly every other major competitor in the domestic wireless industry?

AJ
...
vvelez

Sep 6, 2011, 11:24 PM
So they were just sitting on this money waiting to buy up T-mobile? Not they made that money by providing a phone service people actually bought into?
...
NonBiasedRep

Sep 7, 2011, 12:32 PM
No that would just make way to much logical sense. Obviously AT&T is a horrible evil company that cares nothing about customers but has new ones signing up every day. Obviously they just had money all along and they pay people to join to make it look like there doing something right...You don't stay in buisness by pissing off all your customers. The people bitching are either from another carrier or one of AT&T's customers thats never happy no matter what.
...
WiWavelength

Sep 7, 2011, 1:08 PM
NonBiasedRep said:
Obviously they just had money all along and they pay people to join to make it look like there doing something right...


Yes, AT&T does, in effect, "pay people to join." AT&T buys subs by acquiring other carriers and by subsidizing the iPhone. (In the latter case, many people have become iPhone users despite AT&T. They like the iPhone but detest the carrier.)

NonBiasedRep said:You don't stay in buisness by pissing off all your customers.


Actually, "pissing off all your customers" yet staying in business has been a good practice when you are a monopolistic/oligopolistic giant in an industry with massive barriers to new entrant competition.

If you...
(continues)
...
NonBiasedRep

Sep 8, 2011, 11:31 AM
Lol... Rolling Eyes You can call monopoly all you want bet there are MANY great options. You also have an option to have a cell phone. No one is forcing anyone to a certain carrier nor to even have a cell-phone. If you follow your history back enough you will find the parent company or the parents parent company did something right. They didn't get to be who they are today without success at some point. Get over it make more use of your time.
...
tomarro12

Sep 7, 2011, 9:26 PM
How did they get the money to buy the competition out?
Its called a bank load..
...
sb_178

Sep 6, 2011, 7:06 PM
I agree too, and slammer's "admission" is just as hypocritical as the it claims AT&T is being. the opposite can also be said. One can say that Sprint "wants competition", but isnt that exactly what AT&T is doing?... What would they do?

Fact is it could have been anybody and they would fight for it all the same.

There are solid arguements for both, but its about what side are you on? Its business, and right now Verizon is the biggest, why not AT&T?

And its the people who have power to just not patronize AT&T, so Its us that creates the Walmarts and monopolies/Duopolies...jeez, haven't you people seen that episode of south park? JK...

Its just so easy for smaller companies sell out in this economy as it is today, we are seeing mor...
(continues)
...
Slammer

Sep 6, 2011, 8:09 PM
---" I agree too, and slammer's "admission" is just as hypocritical as the it claims AT&T is being. the opposite can also be said. One can say that Sprint "wants competition", but isnt that exactly what AT&T is doing?"---

Hypocritical you say?

Sprint is a business. They cast a legitimate bid on Tmobile when no one else was interested. No ATT. No Verizon. No one.Sprint never claimed "It is in the best interest for consumers and we need the spectrum for these consumers" They put a bid in to expand their competitve needs and services. This is exactly what most Sprint opponents(Haters) have been saying Sprint should be doing. I've seen it more times in these forums. Sprint need to this, Sprint needs to do that. Yet, when Sprint does, the ...
(continues)
...
sb_178

Sep 6, 2011, 8:48 PM
Sprint couldn't BUY T mobile anyways bc of the tech differences and the price tag... unless I suppose they MERGED and made every phone CDMA and GSM or something, but how can they decide and swing that?

The hypocritical part: I was only making a point about going back and forth and if one says this (you), well then the other can say that...Your second paragraph: Agreed, a lot of people did say that then overlook the venture, but refer to the above, and that is probably why...Your third paragraph: Are you saying all ventures to gain are hypocritical, wouldn't you want to gain and eliminate competition, given the opportunity? We do this on a daily basis for everything. To do this ethically, I think is the challenge, but it's not hypocritical...
(continues)
...
ReaperXero

Sep 6, 2011, 9:11 PM
I don't buy what ATT says about not raising prices. History shows that it will happen. Actually it's inevitable. Granted they may not do it now, but it will happen gradually. Att will be like gas prices.. slowly raise, and hope no one notices.
...
Slammer

Sep 6, 2011, 10:08 PM
The differences in technology was not the issue. The so called "4th Generation" platform of LTE, is the next standard for communication. Already implemented by MetroPCS, Verizon, now ATT and soon Sprint to adopt LTE, it will become the standard as such resembling an all GSM world or all CDMA world. So Sprint would run GSM and CDMA concurrently temporarily just as they have with the soon to close NEXTEL. IDEN is more specific as in proprietary while GSM and CDMA are more closely unionized with one another over IDEN. This would make it far easier to run the two simultaneously as two entities until LTE is full function. Similar to world phones. After that, LTE would make Tmobile and Sprint more compatible than one would think. Other than freque...
(continues)
...
Vmac39

Sep 6, 2011, 9:14 PM
ATT went after Tmobile only after Sprint bid to keep it out of Sprint's hands. That was the only motive. Once under fire for this merge, inconsistancies start emerging from ATT on technical and ethical direction, spectrum holdings, etc.

That's hypocritical.

The last time I heard about Sprint trying to by TMO, was two years ago, at least. ATT didn't make their move until earlier this year and announced a few months ago. I dont know all the details as to why Sprint couldn't buy TMO but, im sure it had little to do with ATT, as people would like to believe. It more than likely, they didn't meet some criteria. So, people are upset that ATT put their bid in. As many people have said, time and time again,TMO will be sold one way or another...
(continues)
...
Slammer

Sep 6, 2011, 10:30 PM
---" The last time I heard about Sprint trying to by TMO, was two years ago, at least. ATT didn't make their move until earlier this year and announced a few months ago. I dont know all the details as to why Sprint couldn't buy TMO but, im sure it had little to do with ATT"---

It had nothing to do with ATT. That's the point. Deutche Telekom and Tmobile have been on again, off again in deciding whether to sell off. Nothing was serious nor amplified as solid. Only talk and rumors. No one took it seriously. Sprint "entertained" the thought and did correspond but only if DT would come to grips of the realization of sale.

Once the reality came, talks began. No one seemed interested and Sprint put in a legitimate bid of roughly 21 billion. ...
(continues)
...
Vmac39

Sep 7, 2011, 1:53 AM
Thay may be but, if there was no actual deal made, it's kind of like you thinking about selling a car. A neighbor gets wind and offers you an amount but, you haven't made any deals, the two of yo are just talking about it. Now, another neighbor has seen the car and also wants the car but, never said anything to you about it, until you put the sign in the window.

Now, I don't know about you, if I'm going to sell something and I haven't made an actual deal, I'm going to sell to whoever offers the most money, regardless of the their intent. We can speculate all day long about ATT's intent. They may have actually wanted TMO and never said anything until DT made it official. If a company is going to make a large purchase like this, they aren'...
(continues)
...
Slammer

Sep 7, 2011, 7:56 AM
All do respect Vmac, the dollars is secondary to this issue. ATT is under heavy questioning not because of the amount of money used for the bid, but because of what effects this merge will have on the industry. This is what people should be concerned about. It doesn't matter if they offered 100 Billion. In this case, It's all about the integrity of why the assets are secured.

Sprint's starting offer was of roughly 21 billion. By all logic, ATT offering a couple of billion more, should've grabbed Tmobile's attention and started the bargaining process. However, AT&T just throws out an offer almost twice the amount of Sprint's. Then throw in the bribery offerings of spectrum and break up fees if the merge isn't granted, ATT is spending quit...
(continues)
...
craigashliegh

Sep 7, 2011, 5:08 PM
Sprint wouldn't be the best potential buyer for Tmo considering they run off different networks. It would have been to much hassle & money to try & convert their networks into one. AT&T is the best potential buyer of Tmobile, no matter how you look at it.
...
Versed

Sep 7, 2011, 8:31 PM
Also, bare in mind, Sprints Market Cap is something like $11 billion. It would be real hard to come across with the credit and money to buy TMO.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=S »
...
SkillciaX

Sep 7, 2011, 11:10 PM
I will agree. the consumer creates the Monopoly. Stop shopping at Walmart (I don't) and maybe their wouldn't be so much cheap made in China crap floating in our land fills... Stop eating McDonalds and blaming them cause you're fat... If you don't like AT&T's phone plans go with Sprint or Verizon or Metro PCS.

You can't exactly call AT&T a monopoly just because they're the biggest. As long as there are other choices available even if they are fewer and farther between.

Again as a consumer you have a choice where you spend your money.
...

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 Twitter Phone Scoop on Facebook Subscribe to Phone Scoop on YouTube Follow on Instagram

 

All content Copyright 2001-2015 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.
1