AT&T May Divest Up to 40% of T-Mobile USA to Gain Approval
Article
Comments
‹ all discussions
show all 6 replies
Just 1 Question!
What's the difference in this merger then the VZW/ALLTEL merger? I'm sure majority of the people here were against it. Why would yhou want to stop someone who wants out the game but still wants to get paid also. When it comes down to it someone else other then Sprint will be next in line to take T-Mobile's place.
...
Because they're not AT&T or Apple and in the minds of these fanboi's, its very different. Same goes, no outcry over the feeble attempts for Sprint to take over TMO. And they ignore even their own logic, which means we would have been left with only one gsm carrier.
...
Because Verizon was much smaller than AT&T at the time. AT&T now is the size of Verizon after the Alltel buy-out, and Verizon still had to divest a lot of Alltel.
Although I don't think the Verizon/Alltel deal should have happened, either.
...
I could really care less on the issue of only 1 gsm carrier att seems to be doing well with it, how many choices of wireless carriers do wr really need out here 3 is good enough
...
How much less could you care?
...
Alltel was never a top-tier national carrier. They were a smaller regional carrier, basically. Verizon still had to divest a lot to gain approval. That was about the number of choices in less populated areas, though.
This is one of the four national carriers buying one of the other four national carriers. It reduces choice for everyone everywhere, in a market where choice is already limited. Plus, the costs of building a new national network (not to mention the difficulty of acquiring new spectrum) make it almost impossible for new companies to enter the market at a national scale. So this deal was a one-way ticket to a much less competitive industry nationwide. The same could not be said of the Verizon / Alltel deal.
...
This forum is closed.
‹ all discussions