FCC joins FTC in Opposing AT&T Acquisition of T-Mobile U.S.A.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/business/media/fcc-seeks-review-of-att-merger-with-t-mobile.html>

Good news for T-Mobile subscribers. They will get back some of the
roaming coverage they've been losing since if the deal falls through
AT&T will have to provide more roaming to T-Mobile.

In <4ecc2e0b$0$1713$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:

><http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/business/media/fcc-seeks-review-of-att-merger-with-t-mobile.html>

>Good news for T-Mobile subscribers. They will get back some of the
>roaming coverage they've been losing since if the deal falls through
>AT&T will have to provide more roaming to T-MobilE.

hip, hip. I'm often in areas that AT&T recently bought up,
and the roaming option has been fading away....

--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

In article <jahb41$r4g$1@reader1.panix.com>, danny burstein says...
>
> In <4ecc2e0b$0$1713$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
>
> ><http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/business/media/fcc-seeks-review-of-att-merger-with-t-mobile.html>
>
> >Good news for T-Mobile subscribers. They will get back some of the
> >roaming coverage they've been losing since if the deal falls through
> >AT&T will have to provide more roaming to T-MobilE.
>
> hip, hip. I'm often in areas that AT&T recently bought up,
> and the roaming option has been fading away....

Yeah, but ATT's footprint is still probably SIGNIFICANTLY larger than T-
Mo's.

If I can get better data coverage as a result of this, I'll be happy.

--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
sjsobol@JustThe.net

On 11/22/2011 3:26 PM, danny burstein wrote:
> In<4ecc2e0b$0$1713$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> SMS<scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
>
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/business/media/fcc-seeks-review-of-att-merger-with-t-mobile.html>
>
>> Good news for T-Mobile subscribers. They will get back some of the
>> roaming coverage they've been losing since if the deal falls through
>> AT&T will have to provide more roaming to T-MobilE.
>
> hip, hip. I'm often in areas that AT&T recently bought up,
> and the roaming option has been fading away....

That's what happened in my area (SF Bay Area). You could see the
T-Mobile maps losing coverage in non-urban parts of the Bay Area where
they did not want to bother putting up towers. Why should AT&T help
enable a lower cost competitor?

What they never made public is just how much roaming coverage AT&T is
required to provide if the deal falls through.

Meanwhile, AT&T is continuing with its already discredited justification
for the acquisition, “It is yet another example of a government agency
acting to prevent billions in new investment and the creation of many
thousands of new jobs at a time when the U.S. economy desperately needs
both.” Never mind the fact that a) AT&T is free to invest billions with
or without acquiring T-Mobile, and b) all the independent analyses show
that jobs would be lost by the acquisition.

In article <4ecc43f3$0$1713$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...


> Meanwhile, AT&T is continuing with its already discredited justification
> for the acquisition, ?It is yet another example of a government agency
> acting to prevent billions in new investment and the creation of many
> thousands of new jobs at a time when the U.S. economy desperately needs
> both.? Never mind the fact that a) AT&T is free to invest billions with
> or without acquiring T-Mobile, and b) all the independent analyses show
> that jobs would be lost by the acquisition.

No one ever accused AT&T's management of being smart, or acting in
anyone's best interest besides their own.

Aside from the fact that they took government bailout money, the #1
reason I'll never buy a GM vehicle is that they hired one of the biggest
*******s in the world, Ed Whitacre, who used to run AT&T.

Personally, if I was an AT&T shareholder (thank $DEITY I'm not), I'd be
hauling management into court about now. Everyone knows their little
charade is just that, and management is going to cost the shareholders a
metric buttload of money. They're all greedy, stupid jackasses that need
to be fired. (Actually, that's how I'd feel if I was a shareholder. I'm
kinda liking the idea of the idiots shooting themselves in the foot.)

--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
sjsobol@JustThe.net

On 11/22/2011 7:03 PM, Steve Sobol wrote:
> In article<4ecc43f3$0$1713$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...
>
>
>> Meanwhile, AT&T is continuing with its already discredited justification
>> for the acquisition, ?It is yet another example of a government agency
>> acting to prevent billions in new investment and the creation of many
>> thousands of new jobs at a time when the U.S. economy desperately needs
>> both.? Never mind the fact that a) AT&T is free to invest billions with
>> or without acquiring T-Mobile, and b) all the independent analyses show
>> that jobs would be lost by the acquisition.
>
> No one ever accused AT&T's management of being smart, or acting in
> anyone's best interest besides their own.

But by using such easily discredited arguments they are not being smart.
It's one thing when you're just doing a public relations campaign where
you want to sway public opinion and where the public rarely researches
an issue, and another thing where you know that you will be subjected to
actual scrutiny by people that know what they are doing.

> Aside from the fact that they took government bailout money, the #1
> reason I'll never buy a GM vehicle is that they hired one of the biggest
> *******s in the world, Ed Whitacre, who used to run AT&T.

This is one reason I won't:
<http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/gmAd_big1.jpg>. Of
course there are many others as well.

> Personally, if I was an AT&T shareholder (thank $DEITY I'm not), I'd be
> hauling management into court about now. Everyone knows their little
> charade is just that, and management is going to cost the shareholders a
> metric buttload of money.

Apparently they really thought that by "donating" money to lots of
strange organizations, and picking up support for the acquisition from
those groups, that it would be enough to get the deal approved. If they
can postpone the whole thing for a while, and Obama loses, they may have
a chance, though the FTC has been somewhat immune to political influence
in the past (though not the FCC).

In article <4ecd07b3$0$1690$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...
>
> On 11/22/2011 7:03 PM, Steve Sobol wrote:
> > In article<4ecc43f3$0$1713$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...


> > No one ever accused AT&T's management of being smart, or acting in
> > anyone's best interest besides their own.
>
> But by using such easily discredited arguments they are not being smart.

Yes, that was my point.

> It's one thing when you're just doing a public relations campaign where
> you want to sway public opinion and where the public rarely researches
> an issue, and another thing where you know that you will be subjected to
> actual scrutiny by people that know what they are doing.

Of course.



> > Personally, if I was an AT&T shareholder (thank $DEITY I'm not), I'd be
> > hauling management into court about now. Everyone knows their little
> > charade is just that, and management is going to cost the shareholders a
> > metric buttload of money.
>
> Apparently they really thought that by "donating" money to lots of
> strange organizations, and picking up support for the acquisition from
> those groups, that it would be enough to get the deal approved. If they
> can postpone the whole thing for a while, and Obama loses, they may have
> a chance, though the FTC has been somewhat immune to political influence
> in the past (though not the FCC).


Those are two big IF's.


--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
sjsobol@JustThe.net