Phone Scoop

printed July 30, 2015
See this page online at:
http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/discuss.php?fm=m&ff=9713&fh=3047273

Home  ›  News  ›

AT&T and T-Mobile Ask FCC for Permission to Transfer Spectrum

Article Comments  

all discussions

Exciting

KOL4420

Jan 23, 2012, 4:29 PM
Woot. Maybe Tminus can stop sucking with coverage now!!!

The service is great when it works, but it fails really bad when I travel up and down California. I frequently travel from San Francisco to LA on the weekends and the coverage is extremely poor when I get closer north.
...
get to the point

Jan 23, 2012, 4:37 PM
Hope they say no! One company should not have to give something up and get nothing in return.
...
wdfichtel

Jan 23, 2012, 4:40 PM
get to the point said:
Hope they say no! One company should not have to give something up and get nothing in return.

Sure they can! This was part of the agreement AT&T committed to when they chose to purchase T-Moble and failed. AT&T only made such a large promise becaus they were sure they would get their way. Now it's come back to bite them.
...
BigRed75

Jan 23, 2012, 5:00 PM
wdfichtel said:


Sure they can! This was part of the agreement AT&T committed to when they chose to purchase T-Moble and failed. AT&T only made such a large promise becaus they were sure they would get their way. Now it's come back to bite them.


Yep. A deal is a deal.
...
Versed

Jan 23, 2012, 5:05 PM
wdfichtel said:


Sure they can! This was part of the agreement AT&T committed to when they chose to purchase T-Moble and failed. AT&T only made such a large promise becaus they were sure they would get their way. Now it's come back to bite them.


I agree then let the ORIGINAL agreement stand, one can't cherry pick agreements. The FCC should say no. After all fairs fair.
...
get to the point

Jan 23, 2012, 6:58 PM
For it to be a contract it must have consideration, I see what t-mobile gets. But what does AT&T get?
...
jagster

Jan 24, 2012, 12:10 AM
For this, AT&T got an OK from the T-Mobile brass for a buyout. That didn't pass the regulatory muster so now AT&T is having to pay their agreed-upon no-go/breakup fee.
...
island-guy

Jan 24, 2012, 1:31 AM
At&t got one expensive reality check. Surprised
...
Vmac39

Jan 24, 2012, 1:59 AM
Well, keep in mind, they both have a very close arrangement now. But, with the deal gone south, for now, they will only make their arrangement more intimate. Stronger roaming deals, partnering to develop out more spectrum for LTE and whatever else they can think off to increase their partnership. Now, I'm just going to put this out there and feel free to comment. I have a feeling, with this partnership getting closer, this is a way of showing what ATT and TMO can do together. Don't think you've heard the last of this deal. By the time it comes up again, the two companies may have too much invested in each other for the government to out right deny them again. I'm talking assets, spectrum and increased roaming deals, when i say too much inves...
(continues)
...
Mark_S

Jan 24, 2012, 7:12 AM
Can't we all just get along?????? Smile
...
Vmac39

Jan 24, 2012, 7:45 AM
Lol I'm not hating or anything like that. I'm just stating the reasons I've switched and I would like to see all the current platforms succeed, as it gives us more choice to find what works for us.
...
muchdrama

Jan 24, 2012, 1:41 PM
get to the point said:
For it to be a contract it must have consideration, I see what t-mobile gets. But what does AT&T get?


That would be 'jack crap'--as stipulated in this truly awesome deal.
...
SublimeDavid

Jan 25, 2012, 2:30 PM
get to the point said:
For it to be a contract it must have consideration, I see what t-mobile gets. But what does AT&T get?



T-Mobile and ATT entered into a binding agreement. T-Mobile recieved consideration from ATT and enetered into a binding agreement for ATT to purchase the company for 39 billion because DT wanted out of the US market all together. In return ATT recieved consideration from DT/ Cool T-Mobile and offered the roaming deal and spectrum along with the cash payment in exchange for that consideration from DT to accept their buyout offer.
...
jagster

Jan 24, 2012, 12:03 AM
This is the ORIGINAL agreement. The agreement was AT&T buys T-Mobile for $39b and if the merger fails they would pay T-Mobile cash plus spectrum.

AT&T is simply fulfilling the agreement they signed with T-Mobile. I can't see why you think that is wrong.
...
netboy

Jan 23, 2012, 6:44 PM
what??
no merger and they still raise the price?
now there' nomore 2gb for 25$, it 3gb for 30$.
...
Fredd

Jan 24, 2012, 11:24 AM
$25/2GB = $12.50/GB
(or if you exceeded, was $35 for up to 3GB).

$30/3GB = $10.00/GB

That is not raising the price.
Studies are showing with more people using more data, the 2GB may not be enough.
...
CellStudent

Jan 23, 2012, 10:57 PM
get to the point said:
Hope they say no! One company should not have to give something up and get nothing in return.


The FCC doesn't (and shouldn't) care about individual companies and their profit margins. The FCC mandate is to ensure the competitive viability of the marketplace at large which is a completely different perspective.

If the spectrum transfer were in any way inappropriate, AT&T would have the first lawyer in the courtroom trying to weasel out of the break-up details, so why aren't they?

I expect this transaction to sail through the FCC without a ripple.

Besides- AT&T refused to deploy service in their AWS spectrum holdings anyway! At least in T-mobile's hands, someon...
(continues)
...
eskeebel

Jan 24, 2012, 9:28 AM
I agree with you when you say the deal should go through FCC without any hiccups, however to say that the FCC doesn't (and shouldn't) care about individual companies and their profit margins, I think you are wrong.

Their job is to protect the consumer, and it is in the consumers interest for the companies to remain profitable. When companies don't remain profitable, they cannot stay in business and we lose competition...example, T-Mobile. The government may have blocked the aquisitions at this time, but don't think for 1 second that DT isn't still going to try and dump the company. They are ok for now and have growth opportunity, but they said themselves, they are worried what happens after their 7 yr roaming agreement is up.

The best ...
(continues)
...
muchdrama

Jan 24, 2012, 1:39 PM
get to the point said:
Hope they say no! One company should not have to give something up and get nothing in return.


Of course they should...you know, 'CONTRACT' and everything.
...
mangobeach

Jan 24, 2012, 9:07 AM
I really dont think you travel to LA or SF that much. T-mo has a really strong foot print in those areas. It is way stronger than AT&T & Sprint in those markets. That is fact. The rest of the country I cant speak for, but I can speak for those 2 markets as I have worked on both of those makets wireless networks. Dont get it wrong, I'm not attacking you, I just know both of those markets really well.
...
tzsm98

Jan 24, 2012, 12:30 PM
I know Monterey has lousy T-Mobile coverage. I carry a second phone with an AT&T gophone SIM in it for use in Monterey because T-Mobile is so spotty there. In some places in Monterey I can stream Netflix through my Nokia N900 wifi tethered to my Nook Color on T-Mobile and in others I can not make a call on T-Mobile. San Martin, admittedly not on the coast but on 101, also has spotty T-Mobile coverage.
...
mangobeach

Jan 26, 2012, 10:28 AM
I agree Monterey is a challenged area for T-mo. I was just stating that for the most part, T-mo has a stronger foot print in Cali than AT&T. Every carrier has areas they can improve.
also the Monterey area is a challenge for most carriers because of the mountainous terrain for that region.
...

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