Home  ›  News  ›

AT&T CEO: Blocking T-Mobile Deal Will Lead to Higher Prices

Article Comments  

all discussions

show all 57 replies

Randall Stephenson is right, and that is why Sprint is running scared.

justfinethanku

Dec 9, 2011, 11:22 AM
Creating efficiencies in ANY market benefits the consumer. Prices go down, quality rises. AT&T may become the only GSM network in the nation, but that means nothing.

Prices for AT&T will go down if they are allowed to buy T-Mobile.

Why do you think Sprint is so terrified of this?
...
cwc240

Dec 9, 2011, 11:25 AM
Monopolies never cause prices to go down. Didn't we all learn that from the game "Monopoly"? When I get Boardwalk and Park Place boy am I in the money!
...
justfinethanku

Dec 9, 2011, 11:27 AM
I'd encourage you to look up the definition of "monopoly" before responding again.
...
cwc240

Dec 9, 2011, 11:29 AM
Here you go smart guy:
mo·nop·o·lyâ₠”š —š[muh-nop-uh-lee] Show IPA
noun, plural -lies.
1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2.
an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3.
the exclusive possession or control of something.
4.
something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
5.
a company or group that has such control.

They will be the sole national GSM provider in the U.S. A.K.A MONOPOLY. DO YOUR HOMEWORK!
...
justfinethanku

Dec 9, 2011, 11:31 AM
Hmm....

What kind of technology is LTE again?

Go ahead and look that up as well.
...
cwc240

Dec 9, 2011, 11:34 AM
How many years are we away from a nationwide coverage of LTE? I'm sure I won't see that for at least 10 years in my rural community. And I'm sure a World Wide adoption of LTE is even Further away so that would give Randall 10 years to screw us and every foreign traveler visiting here.

Shut it
...
justfinethanku

Dec 9, 2011, 11:37 AM
Alright, Now go look at Verizons roadmap for their LTE expansion.

I could do this all day.

A wise man once said "do your homework."

I'm bored now.
...
sp_5015

Dec 9, 2011, 5:48 PM
I have to agree with cwc240...this deal is not good for consumers at all. Your Passion for your half ****ed arguments is blinding you.... you stink of at&t fanboyism.
...
xzero4812

Dec 9, 2011, 6:46 PM
Exactly how is this benificial for consumers??all i see is AT&T holding majority of their customers by the b**ls with outrageous bills and ETF's. Sure verizon and sprint has world phones too but thats only handful. and as far as sprint goes theyre not running scared, just upset they couldnt buyout TMO b4 ATT attempted
...
jaydaproblem

Dec 10, 2011, 10:20 PM
he Mad He About to lose his Job (Tmobile)justfinethanku Always Talking trash!!! 🙄
...
cwc240

Dec 9, 2011, 11:39 AM
Oh, what more? LTE is only being used for data currently. A lot of people, like me, could care less about data and use their cell phones as, this is a novel idea, PHONES! You know, that thing some people still do called TALKING!
...
cwc240

Dec 9, 2011, 11:41 AM
You're a T-mobile sales manager? You know you're job is redundant and you're likely going to lose it "if" this goes through. You should be the person most opposed to this.
...
justfinethanku

Dec 9, 2011, 11:47 AM
My performance is well above average.

I don't think I'll have a problem finding a job.
...
cwc240

Dec 9, 2011, 11:52 AM
Still would suck to lose it. Which I'm sure you will. Does Verizon have any LTE feature phones or flip phones? No, only smart phones. I'm sure they're going to keep it that way.
...
justfinethanku

Dec 9, 2011, 11:56 AM
AT&T purchasing T-Mobile does not equal a monopoly, no matter how you look at it. It wouldn't be a monopoly on cellular service and it wouldn't be a monopoly on GSM. It doesn't matter what phone grandma is using. AT&T is not and never will be a monopoly.
...
cwc240

Dec 9, 2011, 11:57 AM
The Justice Department doesn't agree with you.
...
justfinethanku

Dec 9, 2011, 12:02 PM
Is that your rebuttle?

The Justice Department? 🙄

I guess you win. History has shown that our government ALWAYS knows what the hell it's doing.

The Justice department is playing a game. The government wants even more control and they will use this merger as leverage.
...
thebigsaxon

Dec 9, 2011, 12:00 PM
justfinethanku said:
AT&T purchasing T-Mobile does not equal a monopoly, no matter how you look at it. It wouldn't be a monopoly on cellular service and it wouldn't be a monopoly on GSM. It doesn't matter what phone grandma is using. AT&T is not and never will be a monopoly.


It represents limited customer choice which is representive by an olgiopoly, something that is still prohibited by anti-trust regulations. From a service standpoint, a GSM monopoly can be argued and won because ATT would be the only GSM provider in town.

*I'm only arguing semantics and have no inclination as to what ends up happening.
...
Fredd

Dec 9, 2011, 12:08 PM
Looking over the AT&T lineup - nope, no LTE other than air cards and smartphones. Voice does not depend on the faster data speed transmission, do not expect any non-smartphones on LTE for ATT either. Another invalid arguement gone.
...
cwc240

Dec 9, 2011, 2:53 PM
Excellent! He is being hammered left and right.
...
justfinethanku

Dec 9, 2011, 11:44 AM
VOLTE.

Go ahead and look that up now.


"do your homework"
...
cwc240

Dec 9, 2011, 11:48 AM
You are so aggravating. "Verizon has no plans for using LTE for voice." I am. Have fun being unemployed.
...
justfinethanku

Dec 9, 2011, 11:53 AM
That quote is verifiably false.
...
cwc240

Dec 9, 2011, 11:55 AM
Verify it using LTE non-smart phones. You know, those things people use who don't want to spend a fortune on monthly.
...
Fredd

Dec 9, 2011, 12:09 PM
LTE is data transmission speed, not voice.
...
Vmac39

Dec 9, 2011, 1:50 PM
For now, at least. It's not to say that carriers aren't trying to make the transition at some point. But, for now, GSM and CDMA 2G and 3G are vital for voice calls and SMS at this time. Not putting out an official opinion, just commenting on some of the info that's out there.

http://www.broadsoft.com/technology/technology-leade ... »

http://www.broadsoft.com/technology/technology-leade ... »
...
cwc240

Dec 9, 2011, 2:49 PM
Thank you. The key word is "at some point". It seems unlikely that that would be soon enough that it wouldn't hurt customers through a GSM national coverage monopoly. I would feel a little better about this whole thing going through if LTE was already national and already used for voice.
...
cwc240

Dec 9, 2011, 11:46 AM
Everything I read says Verizon LTE is data only.
...
Fredd

Dec 9, 2011, 12:10 PM
Same with AT&T.
...
Tofuchong

Dec 9, 2011, 6:37 PM
For that argument to be valid, GSM and LTE would need to be 100% compatable with eachother and interchangable. It doesnt matter if it is built from a previously existing technology. It is a new technology that is NOT backwards compatable with the old one. A phone that supports GSM and not LTE can not use LTE, and a phone that supports LTE and not GSM can not use GSM. It doesnt matter that they both originated from the same technology. Invalid argument on your part.
...
mingkee

Dec 10, 2011, 12:39 AM
Monopoly=tyranny
...
dlmjr

Dec 14, 2011, 4:04 PM
What monopoly?
Strawman
...
60dollarcarcharger

Dec 9, 2011, 11:28 AM
You're refering to what SHOULD happen with the merger... not what WILL happen

There's a big difference. Corporations aren't in it for "customers" per say.... they're in it for the $$$
...
justfinethanku

Dec 9, 2011, 11:30 AM
And what would you suggest they do to keep customers? Raise prices?

Sprint will be right there with open arms.
...
60dollarcarcharger

Dec 9, 2011, 11:43 AM
That's the point.. if the merger fails to go through the prince won't go up. AT&T wouldn't put themselves at a disadvantage... they still have competitors

Merger goes through... no GSM competitors... why not raise prices in an effort to gain $$$. It wouldn't happen overnight by any means... probably start with increasing the cost of roaming agreements and going from there
...
Fredd

Dec 9, 2011, 11:47 AM
No GSM competition does not mean a thing. No one is picking either T-Mo or ATT due to their GSM technology. Invalid arguement
...
cwc240

Dec 9, 2011, 11:50 AM
I am. I love GSM hate CDMA. Much for difficult to have multiple phones that are easily swappable with CDMA. Plus, CDMA puts you at their will as to which phones you can use, not yours.
...
60dollarcarcharger

Dec 9, 2011, 11:53 AM
Thus why I didn't jump to plan prices like most others here... probably more network type things such as the price of roaming aka borrowing said network

I will fully admit I do not understand where that would come into play, but I do get that prices won't "go down": nothing ever does
...
Fredd

Dec 9, 2011, 12:02 PM
When the Nation Unlimited plans were released, they were $99.99/month. Competition (mainly from VZN, who ATT views as primary competitor) drove that to change in less than a year to $69.99.
Guess that blows the "never" theory.
...
60dollarcarcharger

Dec 9, 2011, 12:12 PM
Valid point... guess you got me good there huh?
Feel good?

Never may have been to strong a word but I'm sure, since you're so damn brilliant, that you understood what was implied

In the end it wasn't about the price of the plan, it was about accessibility to those that would be willing to spend 69.99 as opposed to 99.99

If someone on a 59.99 plan makes a $10 jump as oppose to refusing a $40 jump then that one customer just turned into an extra 240 for the contract... it was a brilliant move really
...
justfinethanku

Dec 9, 2011, 12:19 PM
Lowering prices to attract customers is the best way to stay in business right?


Now, how would a company go about creating an atmosphere where they could charge less and turn a similar, if not larger profit?
...
60dollarcarcharger

Dec 9, 2011, 12:24 PM
Again, ideal vs realistic

Why lower prices when your customers are just fine with paying the current rate?

The unlimtied plan example from earlier was an industry-wide change... All companies want to charge as much as they can get away with (kind of the underlying point tot his entire thing). Unlimited plans were "promoed" at the lower price... this particulat instance turned into a high enough take-rate to justify the price reduction... thus the current "promo" pricing hasn't changed.
...
muchdrama

Dec 9, 2011, 2:21 PM
justfinethanku said:
Creating efficiencies in ANY market benefits the consumer. Prices go down, quality rises. AT&T may become the only GSM network in the nation, but that means nothing.

Prices for AT&T will go down if they are allowed to buy T-Mobile.

Why do you think Sprint is so terrified of this?


LOL! 'Creating efficiencies'...which means 'making jobs redundant.'

Classic.
...
yarmock

Dec 9, 2011, 2:28 PM
That whole thread made me pee my pants. Such idiotic statements. Nothing good will come out of this merger except for ATTs profit margins.

Im a tmobile employee, trust me no one here is excited about the possible merger with ATT.
...
muchdrama

Dec 9, 2011, 2:47 PM
yarmock said:
That whole thread made me pee my pants. Such idiotic statements. Nothing good will come out of this merger except for ATTs profit margins.

Im a tmobile employee, trust me no one here is excited about the possible merger with ATT.


This guy would make a good Republican candidate.
...
cwc240

Dec 9, 2011, 2:51 PM
What's funny is the original poster is a Tmobile manager. His job would definitely be a "on the chopping block" redundant job.
...
jaydaproblem

Dec 10, 2011, 10:24 PM
he ATmobile Manager? i Guess Thats The Reason why Tmobile Struggling Hiring Retards like justfinethanku
...
furyx639

Dec 9, 2011, 3:49 PM
I agree with you, the AT&T and Verizon duopoly would only be good for consumers. Prices will go down, everyone will get better reception, and we will have more jobs.

Even better would be if we could just eliminate all the carriers and make one company to guarantee the lowest prices, best coverage, and most jobs possible.

Also, we should just eliminate all the cell phone manufacturer competition and sell only iPhones.
...
cwc240

Dec 9, 2011, 4:18 PM
🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
...
Slammer

Dec 10, 2011, 8:53 AM
----" Creating efficiencies in ANY market benefits the consumer. Prices go down, quality rises. AT&T may become the only GSM network in the nation, but that means nothing.

Prices for AT&T will go down if they are allowed to buy T-Mobile.

Why do you think Sprint is so terrified of this?"----


"Creating efficiencies" is a great practice. However, if you would be so kind to study the history of AT&T all the way back from their inception in the 1800's, you will find that they are the least company to have efficiency in mind. Their whole game is to monopolize. Must we relive the 50-60's all over again?

I would also like you to explain how "Prices for AT&T will go down if they are allowed to buy Tmobile". Increasing their spectrum an...
(continues)
...
This_guy_right_here

Dec 10, 2011, 9:49 PM
Were you living and aware in the 50's-60's? That was a profitable time in America. You act as if this merger will change the course of history and everyone who has AT&T or T-Mobile service will revert to being a serf in the castle walls of the AT&T kingdom. It's just a phone bill. Don't like it? get rid of it. Regardless of how much you bitch, you're still going to pay the rates. Stop arguing and deal with it. Want to do something? Convince Anonymous to start an AT&T campaign.
...
Slammer

Dec 11, 2011, 8:08 AM
Well, I didn't live in the 50's and being the fact that I was born in '61, I can honestly say the economy of that era did not affect me on a personal level. I was simply too young.

However, the economy of that time was not the point of my post, but rather the status of AT&T's regiment during that time.

----" You act as if this merger will change the course of history and everyone who has AT&T or T-Mobile service will revert to being a serf in the castle walls of the AT&T kingdom."----

Since AT&T had such a monopolization within the telecommunication industry during that time, I would say most everyone did in fact, live within those walls you pointed out. Given that the economy is nowhere near as stable as it was then, can we reall...
(continues)
...
This_guy_right_here

Dec 11, 2011, 5:17 PM
Really, it disturbs you? was that really the feeling you got from my response? You are a cottonheaded ninnymuggins. Regardless of how you try to argue, you will still pay the rates. Do cell phones really run your life? I find it hard to believe that you would waste your time writing to the government to block the merger. Get rid of your cell phone. Problem solved. Don't rebutle with the cliche "what about other consumers" b.s. You don't care about them, you only care about looking smart on this forum. If you and another consumer were in a situation where only one could live, i guarantee you would walk out of there if it was up to you. Your psuedo-humanitarianism bothers me
...
johnhr2

Dec 12, 2011, 12:07 AM
Sometimes it's either a cell phone or no phone, and in today's world you need a phone for employment. Also cell phones are cheaper than landlines in a lot of rural areas. Also competion lowers prices which helps consumers and also me if you want to point that out. If everyone benefits from blocking the merger except the companies than why is there do so much support for it.
...
Slammer

Dec 12, 2011, 10:01 AM
Yes Sir, your comment DOES disturb me for several reasons:

1) Many of my generation became part of the movement to dethrone the huge control that AT&T once had over the industry. We won just as we have here. So I don't ever feel my time is wasted in fighting for a reasonable consumer balance. This merge is mistake whether you want to take the time to fight it or not.

2) ----"Get rid of your phone. Problem solved."----

Seriously? Do you really feel it is that easy with the dependency of today's society to just stop using their phones? Your logic lacks realism.


3) I think you need to refresh your profile:

----" My name is Mike. I use this site as a research tool. But, a lot of people are full of themselves. So I decided, wh...
(continues)
...
CellStudent

Dec 10, 2011, 11:37 AM
justfinethanku said:
Creating efficiencies in ANY market benefits the consumer.



This is certainly not true. Very few practices are ALWAYS good for the consumer.

One such practice is the entrance of new competitive firms into the marketplace. Adding competitors ALWAYS drives down the cost of goods in an open marketplace.

Anything else that happens in the market can sometimes be good, and sometimes be bad.
...
NonBiasedRep

Dec 11, 2011, 12:20 PM
I agree with you
...
cwc240

Dec 19, 2011, 7:00 PM
Guess you get to keep your job after all. 😁
...

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.