Justice Department blocks AT&T's T-Mobile deal

[LEMHEAD16]

I don't get all the hate towards AT&T. When I was 16 I got a phone thru Sprint terrible service, terrible coverage, expensive plan options, That was 14 years ago when Sprint was actually a big player and my flip phone could barely fit in my pocket. When I got married I switched to AT&T because Sprint wanted a $300 deposit to add a second line and At&T wanted $10.

I have NEVER had a bad experience with At&T customer service and find their coverage and service options acceptable. It just seems to me that when Cell providers are spoken of everyone jumps on the AT&T bashing band wagon.

Back on topic - Our Government is dumb and short sighted, I have no facts to back this statement up.

[Jesda]

I loved AT&T before it was swallowed up by SBC (and renamed "at&t"). They were leaders in research and development. They were also my first mobile data provider -- I had one of those Thinkpad "candlestick" CDPD modems way back in the day.

Currently, I'm a very satisfied U-Verse customer, but I can't imagine paying as much as they charge for telephone service. Therefore, I use a different carrier. Simple as that.

[sbird1]

Back on topic - Our Government is dumb and short sighted, I have no facts to back this statement up.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Don't be an AT&T customer. If you have a wallet, vote with it.

This is something that I practice, but also something that my cynical viewpoint doesn't allow me to truly believe works. I am NOT an AT&T customer, and I HAVE voted with my dollars. I've voted for 7 years, and look where it got me.

What you're unintentionally suggesting is that it's okay for a federal agency (or a court, in this case) to interfere with business on matters that don't pose a threat to life or safety, all in the name of your preference and convenience.

Actually I'm not. Up to this point, I haven't made any argument for or against this kind of federal intervention in this thread. I've merely expressed my pleasure that I don't have to see my contract shifted over to AT&T. You know, from our past Government Motors oriented discussions, that I agree with you on this front. But that doesn't change the fact that I don't have to deal with AT&T and I'm happy about it. If Toyota tried to buy Cadillac and the feds stopped it, I might not agree with their intervention but I'd damn sure be happy the purchase didn't happen.

[slidestyle69]

AT&t is too expensive? i think its close enuff to where Expensive should be used loosely. Lets look at an example here, Individual plans.

T-mobile:

$89.99per month Includes: Unlimited Minutes + Unlimited Text + (5 GB high speed)

$79.99per month Includes: Unlimited Minutes + Unlimited Text + (2 GB high speed)

$59.99per month Includes: ™—Talk + Text | More details

AT&T

450+ unl text-59.99 (unl. txt plan includes unl. calling to any cell phone on any network, 450 only to landlines+ rollover and night and weekends)

450+unl txt+2gb data= 84.99 (if you go over, $10 for another GB.)

Most people dont talk 500 minutes to landlines these days so the need for "unl"minutes is biased with the price plan options available, With ATT you get the unl. to cell phones followed by purchasing unl txt and also rollover minutes, very similiar to the way sprint does their plans so basically unless if you dont only talk to landlines non stop, you could have for the majority everything you need with ATT for around $5 more. Man thats crazy high. if you use more then 2-3GB in a 30 day period on your phone, excluding pandora or other related apps then you need a new hobby IMO.

verizon is the outrageous one here

[Kompresshun]

AT&t is too expensive? i think its close enuff to where Expensive should be used loosely. Lets look at an example here, Individual plans.

T-mobile:

$89.99per month Includes: Unlimited Minutes + Unlimited Text + (5 GB high speed)

$79.99per month Includes: Unlimited Minutes + Unlimited Text + (2 GB high speed)

$59.99per month Includes: ™—Talk + Text | More details

AT&T

450+ unl text-59.99 (unl. txt plan includes unl. calling to any cell phone on any network, 450 only to landlines+ rollover and night and weekends)

450+unl txt+2gb data= 84.99 (if you go over, $10 for another GB.)

Most people dont talk 500 minutes to landlines these days so the need for "unl"minutes is biased with the price plan options available, With ATT you get the unl. to cell phones followed by purchasing unl txt and also rollover minutes, very similiar to the way sprint does their plans so basically unless if you dont only talk to landlines non stop, you could have for the majority everything you need with ATT for around $5 more. Man thats crazy high. if you use more then 2-3GB in a 30 day period on your phone, excluding pandora or other related apps then you need a new hobby IMO.

verizon is the outrageous one here

Thanks for the breakdown of T-Mobile and AT&T's plans, but I think you're missing the point of this, because it's not the money they charge for their service that's the issue. It's the quality you get for your money, I will GLADLY pay Verizons "outrageous" prices, because they offer quality service, even though you have to pay a premium for it. AT&T on the other hand could offer me service for less than T-Mobile and I still wouldn't take it, because they have crappy customer service, ridiculous stipulations hidden in their fine print, and their coverage area is a crock of horse crap. Their plans may add up to better on paper than T-Mobile, but the fact of the matter is that with AT&T's track record, I don't trust them.

Now, if we want to talk about plans, I don't like AT&T's plans either and I couldn't care less if they're only slightly more. I don't like being told that 2GB is my highest option, even if it costs me $10 more to get another 1GB, because i'd rather have the comfort of knowing that my provider isn't going to slap me with a fee because I barely went over the limit. If you prefer AT&T as your service provider that's fine, because i'm not saying they're the worst provider out there, but if they don't make the merger with T-Mobile, I highly doubt that they will stay in the Top 3 in their current direction. What does AT&T have that makes them special anymore? They're not your #1 source for the iPhone anymore, so they can't use that and I really don't see much else that would draw me back to them. All I see is 3 other providers that are trying a lot harder than they are

[slidestyle69]

Data is going limited to all carriers, just wait and see. If not limited, then like t-mobile does with their. throttling it down after 2 or 5Gb depending on what plan your on. Verizon already went that way, $30 will get you 2Gb.

It depends on your area on whether who has the best service there so dont go bash one company just because, where i live AT&T and verizon dominate and we have HSPA + close by with At&t and LTE with verizon in that same area close by. A speed test on my HTC thunderbolt with verizon and my samsung Infuse is VERY comparable. the Ping rate is where verizon jumps ahead by a bigger difference than i like.

Up towards the west coast, AT&T doesnt dominate in alot of areas.

The customer service is not horrible, im sorry but its not. I call for customers everyday for issues and every customer leaves happy, no matter what it takes. A free accessory, A free month of service, A 100 bill credit. We hook people the F up But all it takes to make one person say Bad things towards a company is one situation where they left unhappy and i guess thats you in this moment and its understandable. One thing to note is, most of the time its all up to the REP your dealing with whether it be on the phone or in the store. we have all the resources to send you and your family to jamaica for a week regarding a problem but if my attitude is not bright and crisp at work then im not going to be very helpful.

ATT and verizon have network concerns with the amount of network usage with data, it backfires with network bogging down and resulting in lower performance. ATT has had the most data usage on their network for 3-4 years and its only gotten worse and so creating problems with the spectrum. LTE will fix this and so with verizon also. Do you really think that ATT or verizon just decided one day that they wanted to piss people off by capping data? Its a technical issue, not a personal issue between the carrier and you. T-mobile has the same concern but its not threatning to their network right now.

Please elaborate on the Fine print thing you mentioned,

[PoorManQ45]

This was a subtle way the carriers prevented the phones from being transferred like in the old analog AMPS days - lead to lesser benefit for customers/consumers. The argument was "we subsidized the phone cost", but after the 2 year contract subsidy was completed, you still could not move to another carrier and keep the same phone - you had to get a new phone (only the number could be moved).

Z

I do not mean this response as an argument. I agree with your overall post.

I'd just like to say that the carrier is still required to provide the MLS/Unlock code for your phone. Once you have this you can technically go to another carrier.

The problem arises with the larger carriers as they refuse to add the ESN/MEID into their system. If you know someone that works for Sprint, as an example, you could get them to add a Verizon ESN/MEID into their system. Once this is done you could simply change the PRL and server addresses and you'd be good to go.

So, while it is technically possible, the carriers have even put blocks in place to prevent other carrier's phones from being on their network.

[Kompresshun]

Data is going limited to all carriers, just wait and see. If not limited, then like t-mobile does with their. throttling it down after 2 or 5Gb depending on what plan your on. Verizon already went that way, $30 will get you 2Gb.

It depends on your area on whether who has the best service there so dont go bash one company just because, where i live AT&T and verizon dominate and we have HSPA + close by with At&t and LTE with verizon in that same area close by. A speed test on my HTC thunderbolt with verizon and my samsung Infuse is VERY comparable. the Ping rate is where verizon jumps ahead by a bigger difference than i like.

Up towards the west coast, AT&T doesnt dominate in alot of areas.

The customer service is not horrible, im sorry but its not. I call for customers everyday for issues and every customer leaves happy, no matter what it takes. A free accessory, A free month of service, A 100 bill credit. We hook people the F up But all it takes to make one person say Bad things towards a company is one situation where they left unhappy and i guess thats you in this moment and its understandable. One thing to note is, most of the time its all up to the REP your dealing with whether it be on the phone or in the store. we have all the resources to send you and your family to jamaica for a week regarding a problem but if my attitude is not bright and crisp at work then im not going to be very helpful.

ATT and verizon have network concerns with the amount of network usage with data, it backfires with network bogging down and resulting in lower performance. ATT has had the most data usage on their network for 3-4 years and its only gotten worse and so creating problems with the spectrum. LTE will fix this and so with verizon also. Do you really think that ATT or verizon just decided one day that they wanted to piss people off by capping data? Its a technical issue, not a personal issue between the carrier and you. T-mobile has the same concern but its not threatning to their network right now.

Please elaborate on the Fine print thing you mentioned,

Ok, first of all I was a customer with AT&T for a few years up until 2 years ago and I also was a customer with them previous to that. I didn't have one bad experience with them, I had numerous ones, as did my family. So it's not a case of I got one bad rep and didn't give them a chance, I was loyal to AT&T for many years and I finally got fed up with them and left. Some people prefer different things than others, I personally don't care for anything that AT&T has to offer me. That's what it comes down to, it's not personal vendetta, it's just that fact that I didn't care for the things I dealt with while I was a customer there and I don't see anything that will ever draw me back.

I never meant to insinuate that my issue was with data caps either, because it is not. You presented the data plans above as if it were silly to think that T-Mobile is a better choice than AT&T, which is irrelevant in my opinion. It's simply the fact that I don't prefer their service personally, nor the way that they present themselves and I know a lot of people that feel the same way. I also know a lot of people that feel completely opposite and greatly dislike everyone but AT&T, but they're far fewer than the latter. That's fine, it's your decision who you prefer as a carrier. I'm not the only one bashing AT&T out there, but it all comes down to personal preference.

I assume you work for AT&T from how personally you're taking it? Either way, i'm glad you're all about them and you provide excellent customer service, but you can't guarantee me that every customer service rep in AT&T provides the same quality of service that you expect from yourself. I'm sorry but they don't, regardless of if it's AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, or Sprint. I have had far better results with other carriers personally, but that's simply from my perspective and if you think it's wrong, that's fine too but what you're preaching doesn't convince me that I should change my opinion.

Now I didn't come here to get into a pissing match over who's company, plan, or whatever is better, so lets get back on track: AT&T doesn't need to merge with T-Mobile, plain and simple. There's no benefit from it and that's my opinion. Kthxbi

[Jesda]

They benefit from scale -- greater cost efficiencies (if merged properly) and improved earnings which benefit T shareholders.

As for the customers, there's always the option of leaving T-Mo. Where I live, if you're displeased with the major carriers, there's US Cellular not to mention the growing selection of prepaid/VMNO carriers. Like most good things, US Cellular is great but it isn't the cheapest.


Nissan doesn't make anything I like anymore, so I moved on.

[PoorManQ45]

Jesda, for some reason in the US we keep getting fewer and fewer choices across the board.

This leads to increased control by fewer corporations and in turn higher prices for the same, or less, services.

[Jesda]

That's true, but it isn't by accident. Enough people are sufficiently satisfied with AT&T (whether they're actually happy is another matter) to keep forking over $80+ a month for wireless service.

[slidestyle69]

I see where your coming -A33- and i dont mean to be argumentable, i guess im a little headstrong about the situation as i see it as a good thing and also seeing so much offense towards the company, i think well i could post 1000 words and change everybodys mind lol but stepping back and looking ar my own prespective, its an internal view rather than a consumers point of view. Its all about personal preference like you said.

[PoorManQ45]

That's true, but it isn't by accident. Enough people are sufficiently satisfied with AT&T (whether they're actually happy is another matter) to keep forking over $80+ a month for wireless service.

If we had more competition though the prices would theoretically decrease.

So, currently with three big competitors to ATT their price is ~$80+ a month. Now, if we eliminate one of those competitors what is to stop them from increasing the price?

[Jesda]

That's true, but it isn't by accident. Enough people are sufficiently satisfied with AT&T (whether they're actually happy is another matter) to keep forking over $80+ a month for wireless service.

If we had more competition though the prices would theoretically decrease.

So, currently with three big competitors to ATT their price is ~$80+ a month. Now, if we eliminate one of those competitors what is to stop them from increasing the price?

If a large number of consumers are willing to spend that much (and apparently, for whatever silly reason, they are), then the number of competitors becomes a smaller influence if the market is able to sustain it. And relative to technological advancement and factoring in inflation, the cost of wireless service has fallen dramatically over the past decade.

With all the die-hard phone geeks on NICO who identify with their handsets the way some people do with their cars, I'm surprised everyone isn't willing to pay twice as much.

Those competitors aren't being eliminated by this merger anyway, and a large enough volume of disgruntled customers in a real monopoly situation would create an incentive for someone to enter the market and compete. Unlike public schools and mail service, you aren't legally forced into an inferior choice. And contrary to popular belief, there are more than three wireless carriers (several hundred, actually). Most are regional networks that provide service to neglected areas or VMNOs that cater to a niche.

[Kompresshun]

I see where your coming -A33- and i dont mean to be argumentable, i guess im a little headstrong about the situation as i see it as a good thing and also seeing so much offense towards the company, i think well i could post 1000 words and change everybodys mind lol but stepping back and looking ar my own prespective, its an internal view rather than a consumers point of view. Its all about personal preference like you said.

No worries man, I'm headstrong myself about it

I tend to stand pretty strongly behind companies I believe in, so I can understand where you're coming from too. I still am very much biased towards Advance Auto Parts, because I worked for them for over 5 years. I think there are some good aspects to it too, its just hard for me to look at them because I'm worried about how it will effect my service with Sprint in the future and as of right now I have no interest jn being an At&t customer again, at least anytime soon. It could change everything for the good though, so I'm willing to sit back and see what happens if the merger does go through, even if I am a bit skepticak

[PoorManQ45]

Those competitors aren't being eliminated by this merger anyway, and a large enough volume of disgruntled customers in a real monopoly situation would create an incentive for someone to enter the market and compete. Unlike public schools and mail service, you aren't legally forced into an inferior choice. And contrary to popular belief, there are more than three wireless carriers (several hundred, actually). Most are regional networks that provide service to neglected areas or VMNOs that cater to a niche.

I don't believe this can happen with the GSM network though. SZH will be able to provide info on this, but I thought that the carriers were purchasing the spectrum that they operate in. If that's the case then no one can enter the market.

I always hear people talk about "talk with your money". Maybe I haven't been keeping up with business news, but can you provide some examples of when the consumers have been able to force a large business into changing their pricing structure?

[Jesda]

I don't believe this can happen with the GSM network though. SZH will be able to provide info on this, but I thought that the carriers were purchasing the spectrum that they operate in. If that's the case then no one can enter the market.

I always hear people talk about "talk with your money". Maybe I haven't been keeping up with business news, but can you provide some examples of when the consumers have been able to force a large business into changing their pricing structure?

Business news? Look at the wireless business. Competition has resulted in lower prices. You are no longer paying $65/mo for 90 minutes and $1 per kilobyte of data. I remember those days well and I didn't care for them. Competition among major carriers has pushed prices down, not up, thus the move toward mergers to achieve scale advantages and operating efficiencies.

As for GSM, it isn't the only wireless spectrum in the world and in 10 or 20 years with the rapid progression of technology it could be obsolete. FCC regulation (and resale with bidding) plays a major role in limiting radio access.


I definitely see where you're coming from, but it's a limited view that assumes the status quo will always be what it is. Technology and the market move faster than regulators.