Possible AT&T - T- Mobile merger

[Larks2242 251]

AT&T recently announced they plan on buying their biggest competitor T-Moble, which would give them 43% of the market share provided it passes anti-trust suits ect.

I think i'll drop my current service and go AT&T cause they may end up the only company with maximum coverage.

Seems the big 3 are Cells (AT&T) OS (Windows) videogames (EA), they should all just merge into one giant company, maybe even throw in a company like Kenmore, won't be long till Microsoft starts making washing machines and dryers.

[GreekMan 246]

yeah i heard about that...I am currently with T-Mobile and a proud owner of a G2! I hope this does not ruin T-Mobile's rep with coverage and customer service..... Then again T-Mobile will get a better range of phones in about a year so we will see.... when you think about it T-Mobile is the best at deals so i hope that does not get ruined....

[kingdiz_55 12]

I thought they already merged )

[Tropic Storm 15]

With that merger they better fix their awful signal. Honestly, I could care less even if you can even get service in caves, AT&T needs to be RELIABLE.

I live in Hawaii and coverage is just decent, not blazing like what ATT claim. Even worse, during the Japanese Earthquake, when just got jumped with that tsunami warning, all one million people here started calling family and friends if they're evacuating or not. Surprisingly, all of Verizon's line was up, T-Mobile's was up too and Sprint as well were all fine. Heck, all my Sprint and T-Mobile friends were facebooking everyone on their cells. My ATT phone?......not a single bar.

Even the state emergency crew was let down by them.

[JayStimson 211]

Sure will reduce competition which is never good for the consumer. I'm curious what Congress will have to say. When they allow large mergers like this there are usually strings attached.

I had T-Mobile a while back and was never happy with their customer service and how often I would lose my bars. Often right in the middle of a conversation.

I've had Verizon now for more than 2 years and things are much better.

AT&T I wonder about. I tried to order their internet service (twice) over the internet, got an installation date both times and both times, no-one ever showed up. After each no-show I went back to check on the order (with confirmation number) and their system said there was no such order (it just vanished I guess). Can't say they deserve 5 stars for reliability.

And these days, who can trust any large company.

[sneakeypete 16]

Seems the big 3 are Cells (AT&T) OS (Windows) videogames (EA), they should all just merge into one giant company, maybe even throw in a company like Kenmore, won't be long till Microsoft starts making washing machines and dryers.

National, international, international... That aint going to happen.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Seems the big 3 are Cells (AT&T) OS (Windows) videogames (EA), they should all just merge into one giant company, maybe even throw in a company like Kenmore, won't be long till Microsoft starts making washing machines and dryers.

National, international, international... That aint going to happen.

Sounds like an agreement in restraint of trade. I don't think the anti-trust people will let it happen. Competition keeps prices down. If it happens, what do you think would happen to your service levels, hmm?

[Easy Bakes 253]

Seems the big 3 are Cells (AT&T) OS (Windows) videogames (EA), they should all just merge into one giant company, maybe even throw in a company like Kenmore, won't be long till Microsoft starts making washing machines and dryers.

National, international, international... That aint going to happen.

Sounds like an agreement in restraint of trade. I don't think the anti-trust people will let it happen. Competition keeps prices down. If it happens, what do you think would happen to your service levels, hmm?

the anti trust people haven't stoped AT&T yet they seem to aquire whoever they want too. Even their thier own divisions like bellsouth and Cingular.

Whos idea was it to break AT&T up anyway?

Seems they have come full circle back to being even biger then they were before.

Personly i realy dont care as long as my phone will make a call wheni want it too.

How bout it AT&T ! why don't you get the phone makers to make a phone that works indoors, I can film a feature length HD movie with my phone but cant make call inside a building.

[hym 358]

the anti trust people haven't stoped AT&T yet they seem to aquire whoever they want too. Even their thier own divisions like bellsouth and Cingular.

Whos idea was it to break AT&T up anyway?

Seems they have come full circle back to being even biger then they were before.

There is a significant difference between when AT&T was broken up and now. (It's also a wonderful example of how short-sighted and naive many in the government are, but that's a different issue.)

When AT&T was broken up in 1984, the decision to split apart the company was ultimately the result of how the executives had built the company. It was ruled that the executives had built the company in a manner inconsistent with what the rules said was fair play. Anti-trust regulators hailed it as a victory against big business, but the AT&T executives agreed that they weren't going to simply accept the ruling and move on. The executive board resolved to rebuild the company to its former status, and it would be done in a fashion that no matter how powerful the company became, anti-trust regulators would never be able to get the company split apart again. In the more than 25 years since the ruling the split apart AT&T, every major business move the company has undertaken has been another piece of the process of rebuilding the company. Now that AT&T has essentially rebuilt itself, people are calling for regulators to look at splitting the company, but it's a non-issue as the company has rebuilt itself in a manner that makes it effectively immune to anti-trust lawsuits.

The 1984 ruling against AT&T was a serious setback to the company, but AT&T has ultimately gotten the last laugh.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Hym doesn't believe in the doctrine of eminent domain, eh? If the U.S. government wants to break up AT&T, it will only take some legislation to void their charter and start over. That is, unless AT&t is no longer a U.S. domiciled corporation.

Getting such a bill through the Republican dominated House would be a problem, but there is an election coming up. We'll see whose running the Executive after that. I suspect Obama will keep his office for the traditional second term. Incumbents are hard to unseat. And let's see, isn't a third of the Senate up for grabs at the same time? What about the House?

I never objected to a big communications monopoly when AT&T was intact and owned Bell Canada outright. Now we have Bell Ontario and Bell Quebec. One of the great problems of the unintegrated company is that the left-hand doesn't know what the main-droit is doing. At one time the consumer Internet arm was domiciled in Bell Quebec. Dealing with them was like talking to a foreign country, and I had an awful time getting them to stop billing me when I left.

There are now at least three businesses in Canada where I am: Bell Ontario, Bell Long Lines, and Bell Cellular (who have theoretically merged with Bell Ontario). If you want to make a long distance call you get hit with a connect charge for Bell Long Lines. Foo.

[hym 358]

Hym doesn't believe in the doctrine of eminent domain, eh? If the U.S. government wants to break up AT&T, it will only take some legislation to void their charter and start over.

This is not a matter of simply writing new legislation. AT&T has a legal right to do business in the United States. The US legal system is far too complicated to simply write a single piece of legislation to break up a company. Even if such a move was permissible under current legal precedents (which is highly doubtful), it would be covered in so much legal wrangling that AT&T could very likely stretch it out for decades (which would be plenty of time for them to figure out a way to wiggle out of the consequences of the case should they feel they would lose it).

(For the record, I have no problem with eminent domain if it used properly.)

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Hym doesn't believe in the doctrine of eminent domain, eh? If the U.S. government wants to break up AT&T, it will only take some legislation to void their charter and start over.

This is not a matter of simply writing new legislation. AT&T has a legal right to do business in the United States. The US legal system is far too complicated to simply write a single piece of legislation to break up a company. Even if such a move was permissible under current legal precedents (which is highly doubtful), it would be covered in so much legal wrangling that AT&T could very likely stretch it out for decades (which would be plenty of time for them to figure out a way to wiggle out of the consequences of the case should they feel they would lose it).

(For the record, I have no problem with eminent domain if it used properly.)

Well, naturally they would fight. Just because they have a charter, they don't have carte blanche to do what they like. Governments are funny that way. I am sure the cat would fight when it found itself in a snare. I don't care how you put it, monopolistic practices are illegal in your country as they are in mine. It is a good illustration of what is wrong with our version of capitalism.

Their long-standing conspiracy could be found in contempt of Congress or some such premise. You do have some rather draconian conspiracy laws.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Hym doesn't believe in the doctrine of eminent domain, eh? If the U.S. government wants to break up AT&T, it will only take some legislation to void their charter and start over.

This is not a matter of simply writing new legislation. AT&T has a legal right to do business in the United States. The US legal system is far too complicated to simply write a single piece of legislation to break up a company. Even if such a move was permissible under current legal precedents (which is highly doubtful), it would be covered in so much legal wrangling that AT&T could very likely stretch it out for decades (which would be plenty of time for them to figure out a way to wiggle out of the consequences of the case should they feel they would lose it).

(For the record, I have no problem with eminent domain if it used properly.)

Well, naturally they would fight. Just because they have a charter, they don't have carte blanche to do what they like. Governments are funny that way. I am sure the cat would fight when it found itself in a snare. I don't care how you put it, monopolistic practices are illegal in your country as they are in mine. It is a good illustration of what is wrong with our version of capitalism.

Their long-standing conspiracy could be found in contempt of Congress or some such premise. You do have some rather draconian conspiracy laws.

But it wouldnt be in a snare.the lawmakers who put forward any legislation to break them up would lose thier campaign contributions, lobbyist money ect. So this merger will likely get rubber stamped almost unapposed.

you think AT&T only gives money to republicans?

  Edited March 24, 2011 by Easy Bakes  

[Larks2242 251]

Whats with all this republican bashing?

@ Moose: And how is scrict goverment intervention better?

I gotta say i like this move and hope it goes through, it would expand coverage significantly.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Whats with all this republican bashing?

@ Moose: And how is strict government intervention better?

I gotta say i like this move and hope it goes through, it would expand coverage significantly.

Well, Larks, I am not for strict government intervention, just sensible rules. It is an agreement in restraint of trade if some company is able to take a monopolistic position in any market. Eventually they'll be able to charge any price for their service, and there will be no restraint. You may be in favor now, but you will soon be serviced only in the barnyard sense.

I was against the break-up of AT&T in the first place, because all that happened is that this giant became annoyed. Some idle anti-trust idealist wanted something to do.

As for Republican bashing, conservatives are a pretty good target, and the socialists (Democrats) are just as vulnerable. Our Conservative government is about to be voted out of office in about 180 minutes, and life is going to be interesting over the next six weeks in Canada. When I see a pile of bucolic product, I am not averse to yelling "Used food!".

  Edited March 25, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[LivingInThePast 364]

Well, actually, the current AT&T was originally SBC, the Southwestern Bell Company, a "Baby Bell" company. It only became the current AT&T after it acquired the original AT&T (American Telephone & Telegraph) a few years ago. Given that AT&T was known as "Ma Bell" for years after the merger, it's a terrifying implication the current AT&T: a child that ate its own mother

  Edited March 28, 2011 by LivingInThePast  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, actually, the current AT&T was originally SBC, the Southwestern Bell Company, a "Baby Bell" company. It only became the current AT&T after it acquired the original AT&T (American Telephone & Telegraph) a few years ago. Given that AT&T was known as "Ma Bell" for years after the merger, it's a terrifying implication the current AT&T: a child that ate its own mother

Now you know why Chronos (Greek titan) ate his own children. Look what happened when he missed Zeus.

AT&T should live up to its heritage and rename itself Bell Worldwide Unlimited.

[Larks2242 251]

Whats with all this republican bashing?

@ Moose: And how is strict government intervention better?

I gotta say i like this move and hope it goes through, it would expand coverage significantly.

Well, Larks, I am not for strict government intervention, just sensible rules. It is an agreement in restraint of trade if some company is able to take a monopolistic position in any market. Eventually they'll be able to charge any price for their service, and there will be no restraint. You may be in favor now, but you will soon be serviced only in the barnyard sense.

I was against the break-up of AT&T in the first place, because all that happened is that this giant became annoyed. Some idle anti-trust idealist wanted something to do.

Even if AT&T were to become a giant again, it dosen't really put them in as much as a monopolistic position as it did back then, there are many alternatives now (Pay as you go, ect.) little services like that can benefit from the deal, for example older people don't know how to text, use the web use apps ect, on a phone so they may rather just have a basic pay as you go service.

Also there is Sprint and Verizon which AT&T basicly could never acquire due to the fact they operate on different frequencies (GSM, CDMA) Which wold make it rather difficult to have a swich over without bumping everyone off, not to mention it would cost the company millions.

So all in all (to me) the pros outweight the cons, with the two companies merged into one they can provide better coverage and service.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Whats with all this republican bashing?

@ Moose: And how is strict government intervention better?

I gotta say i like this move and hope it goes through, it would expand coverage significantly.

Well, Larks, I am not for strict government intervention, just sensible rules. It is an agreement in restraint of trade if some company is able to take a monopolistic position in any market. Eventually they'll be able to charge any price for their service, and there will be no restraint. You may be in favor now, but you will soon be serviced only in the barnyard sense.

I was against the break-up of AT&T in the first place, because all that happened is that this giant became annoyed. Some idle anti-trust idealist wanted something to do.

Even if AT&T were to become a giant again, it doesn't really put them in as much as a monopolistic position as it did back then, there are many alternatives now (Pay as you go, etc.) little services like that can benefit from the deal, for example older people don't know how to text, use the web use apps etc, on a phone so they may rather just have a basic pay as you go service.

I guess I don't count as older people at age 73. Just which older people did you have in mind? Age discrimination is illegal.

{And by the way, you young whipper snapper, I fixed your lousy spelling.}

[penguin1634 43]

@Nonny: I am pretty sure Obama will lose his seat. He isn't exactly popular down here in the 'States. There have been one term presidents before: Carter and Bush I are two I can name right now.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I guess it really depends on who the Republicans cough up. If it is Sarah Palin, then I doubt it. Obama's new slogan should be "Gee whiz, we couldn't".