DALLAS (AP) - AT&T says it has agreed with Deutsche Telekom to
ends its bid to buy T-Mobile USA after facing fierce government
objections. The cellphone giant said Monday that the actions of
the government to block the merger do not change the challenges of
the wireless phone industry, which it says requires more spectrum
to expand.
In message <Pine.NEB.4.64.1112191707440.27591@panix5.panix.co m> someone
claiming to be danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> typed:
>AT&T ends merger attempt with T-Mobile
>
>http://j.mp/uCxrTh (AP / NPR)
>
> DALLAS (AP) - AT&T says it has agreed with Deutsche Telekom to
> ends its bid to buy T-Mobile USA after facing fierce government
> objections. The cellphone giant said Monday that the actions of
> the government to block the merger do not change the challenges of
> the wireless phone industry, which it says requires more spectrum
> to expand.
So anyone have any thoughts as to what this means for T-Mobile? On one
hand, T-Mobile gets some spectrum (and cash?) from AT&T, but on the
other hand, T-Mobile hasn't exactly being going all out getting the
hottest new devices lately either.
--
It's always darkest before dawn. So if you're going to
steal your neighbor's newspaper, that's the time to do it.
At 19 Dec 2011 15:22:05 -0800 DevilsPGD wrote:
> In message <Pine.NEB.4.64.1112191707440.27591@panix5.panix.co m> someone
> claiming to be danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> typed:
>
> >AT&T ends merger attempt with T-Mobile
> >
> >http://j.mp/uCxrTh (AP / NPR)
> >
> > DALLAS (AP) - AT&T says it has agreed with Deutsche Telekom to
> > ends its bid to buy T-Mobile USA after facing fierce government
> > objections. The cellphone giant said Monday that the actions of
> > the government to block the merger do not change the challenges of
> > the wireless phone industry, which it says requires more spectrum
> > to expand.
>
> So anyone have any thoughts as to what this means for T-Mobile? On one
> hand, T-Mobile gets some spectrum (and cash?) from AT&T, but on the
> other hand, T-Mobile hasn't exactly being going all out getting the
> hottest new devices lately either.
I'll take a stab at the glass half-full possibility. T-Mo's Der
Fatherland ownership at Deutsche Telekom wants out of the US, not because
they don't like siphoning the dollars back across the Atlantic, but
because they don't want to pay for the capital investments needed to stay
competitive (e.g. 4G.) Now they may get their cake and eat it too.
Reportedly, AT&T will try to negotiate a spectrum sharing deal (probably
in lieu of some of the cash and roaming coverage they now owe T-Mo).
Such a deal is useless to AT&T unless T-Mo lights up at least a little 3G
at 1900MHz- AT&T doesn't really need more 2G/EDGE bandwidth!
According to a few posts at HowardForums, T-Mo recently lit up some 3G at
1900 inPhiladelphia- perhaps this is a test for a future shared AT&T-Mo
network a la the Cingular/T-Mo networks in NYC and the West Coast prior
to the Cingular/AT&T merger?
If T-Mo converts some of their native 1900 for 3G, (and gets shared use
of AT&T 850/1900 network) handset selection should no longer be a
problem, since that would allow T-Mo to use "off the shelf" handsets
(including the Jesus Phone) and customers could now use unlocked
AT&T/Generic handsets.
At the end of the day, this might leave AT&T and T-Mo at coverage parity,
give or take a few rural roaming partners, alleviate AT&T's spectrum
issues in a few key cities, and take the infrastructure-improvement
pressure off of T-Mo long enough to either rekindle DT's interest in the
US market, or find someone else to pawn T-Mo off onto that regulators
could live with. (Echostar, Leap, etc.)
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 17:16:17 -0700, Todd Allcock wrote:
> If T-Mo converts some of their native 1900 for 3G, (and gets shared use
> of AT&T 850/1900 network) handset selection should no longer be a
> problem, since that would allow T-Mo to use "off the shelf" handsets
> (including the Jesus Phone) and customers could now use unlocked
> AT&T/Generic handsets.
And how do T-Mo's 1700 spectrum, and their handsets tailored to use that,
enter the picture?
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
In article <jcok5e$lt8$1@dont-email.me>, Todd Allcock says...
> I'll take a stab at the glass half-full possibility. T-Mo's Der
> Fatherland ownership at Deutsche Telekom wants out of the US, not because
> they don't like siphoning the dollars back across the Atlantic, but
> because they don't want to pay for the capital investments needed to stay
> competitive (e.g. 4G.) Now they may get their cake and eat it too.
Yes. I know AT&T made that deal because they were incredibly arrogant
and thought they could bulldoze it through, but if I was an AT&T
shareholder, I'd seriously be considering a lawsuit about now. What an
unbelievably boneheaded move, even for AT&T. I believe they threw away a
total of about $6bn.
> Reportedly, AT&T will try to negotiate a spectrum sharing deal (probably
> in lieu of some of the cash and roaming coverage they now owe T-Mo).
> Such a deal is useless to AT&T unless T-Mo lights up at least a little 3G
> at 1900MHz- AT&T doesn't really need more 2G/EDGE bandwidth!
Also, there are other potential suitors out there.
> According to a few posts at HowardForums, T-Mo recently lit up some 3G
at
> 1900 inPhiladelphia- perhaps this is a test for a future shared AT&T-Mo
> network a la the Cingular/T-Mo networks in NYC and the West Coast prior
> to the Cingular/AT&T merger?
> If T-Mo converts some of their native 1900 for 3G, (and gets shared use
> of AT&T 850/1900 network) handset selection should no longer be a
> problem, since that would allow T-Mo to use "off the shelf" handsets
> (including the Jesus Phone) and customers could now use unlocked
> AT&T/Generic handsets.
Wait. That means I could use an unlocked iPhone on T-Mo, yes?
> At the end of the day, this might leave AT&T and T-Mo at coverage
parity,
> give or take a few rural roaming partners, alleviate AT&T's spectrum
> issues in a few key cities, and take the infrastructure-improvement
> pressure off of T-Mo long enough to either rekindle DT's interest in the
> US market, or find someone else to pawn T-Mo off onto that regulators
> could live with. (Echostar, Leap, etc.)
Yeah, and they still wouldn't have 4G coverage up here. No one does. :-/
At 19 Dec 2011 22:40:47 -0500 tlvp wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 17:16:17 -0700, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> > If T-Mo converts some of their native 1900 for 3G, (and gets shared
use
> > of AT&T 850/1900 network) handset selection should no longer be a
> > problem, since that would allow T-Mo to use "off the shelf" handsets
> > (including the Jesus Phone) and customers could now use unlocked
> > AT&T/Generic handsets.
>
> And how do T-Mo's 1700 spectrum, and their handsets tailored to use that,
> enter the picture?
It's just be another band in my scenario. AT&T, if the merger happened,
was reportedly going to use 1700 for LTE eventually. Maybe if a long-
term network sharing agreement is reached, that will still be the goal.
For my plan to work well, T-Mo will need AT&T's network to help support
legacy 2G users, since T-Mo lacks enough 1900 spectrum in many areas to
spilt it between 3G and 2G (alternatively, T-Mo's 1900 2G network could
be left alone as the refuge for both companies' legacy 2G users, and AT&T
could convert their metro 2G bandwidth to 3G.) In addition, T-Mo's
branded handsets would be programmed OTA, if possible, to use 1700
whenever possible, to leave more 850/1900 for AT&T users.
If the network sharing agreement was long lasting enough, AT&T could also
introduce its own AWS (1700) capable handsets.
On 12/19/2011 2:08 PM, danny burstein wrote:
> AT&T ends merger attempt with T-Mobile
>
> http://j.mp/uCxrTh (AP / NPR)
>
> DALLAS (AP) - AT&T says it has agreed with Deutsche Telekom to
> ends its bid to buy T-Mobile USA after facing fierce government
> objections. The cellphone giant said Monday that the actions of
> the government to block the merger do not change the challenges of
> the wireless phone industry, which it says requires more spectrum
> to expand.
"AT&T said that it has entered into a mutually beneficial roaming
agreement."
So when do T-Mobile customers get their AT&T roaming back?
> Yes. I know AT&T made that deal because they were incredibly arrogant
> and thought they could bulldoze it through, but if I was an AT&T
> shareholder, I'd seriously be considering a lawsuit about now. What an
> unbelievably boneheaded move, even for AT&T. I believe they threw away a
> total of about $6bn.
Deutsche Telekom played AT&T well. How many think that
Deutsche Telekom was well aware that the chances of this deal going
through were very small?
From the beginning of this fiasco, AT&T was in desperation mode,
donating money to plethora of strange organizations that issued bizarre
statements supporting the acquisition, suddenly becoming experts in
broadband telecom in addition to their regular work. Not only did this
not impress the FCC or DOJ, it likely made them more diligent.
The $3 billion in cash and $1 billion in roaming is just part of AT&T's
losses. The legal costs, the lobbying costs, and the payments to
non-profits in return for support (though they claim there was no
connection) add up to hundreds of millions of dollars more.
<http://www.iwatchnews.org/2011/10/17/7118/charities-supporting-att-s-buyout-t-mobile-have-financial-incentive>
<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56660.html>
Oh, and don't forget G-d. He (or she) supported the merger,
<http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/God-Supports-The-ATT-TMobile-Merger-116620>.
G-d only got $50,000 cash for his (or her) support of the merger, no
burnt offerings, and there are no refunds.
> On one hand, T-Mobile gets some spectrum (and cash?) from AT&T,
I don't know how they'll manage it but I bet AT&T will NOT pay the
agreed upon breakup fee to T-Mobile and I'll bet they had a plan to not
do so in place before the agreement was signed!
> So anyone have any thoughts as to what this means for T-Mobile? On one
> hand, T-Mobile gets some spectrum (and cash?) from AT&T, but on the
> other hand, T-Mobile hasn't exactly being going all out getting the
> hottest new devices lately either.
During this whole thing T-Mobile U.S.A. was taking pains to make
themselves appear less competitive, both in terms of price and devices.
Now this is over they have an incentive to start trying again.
They have a new pile of money though this belongs to the parent
corporation and they may decide to give up on the U.S. and just go into
harvest mode, slowly selling off spectrum.
They could sell off spectrum piece-meal, intentionally destroying the
U.S. division while making money from the spectrum sales, then when
there is little left of the company simply pull out of the U.S.
entirely. They could make roaming agreements part of the spectrum sales
to keep their existing customers happy.
The U.S. is a tough market considering the vast unpopulated areas where
a carrier is expected to provide coverage. Just in my area, the San
Francisco Bay Area, there are vast undeveloped areas that are still
popular for recreation, and where coverage is good to have, especially
when driving through those area, but when roaming agreements with AT&T
ended those areas lost T-Mobile coverage. Now maybe they'll get it back.
At 20 Dec 2011 08:52:29 -0800 SMS wrote:
> On 12/19/2011 11:37 PM, Steve Sobol wrote:
>
> > Yes. I know AT&T made that deal because they were incredibly arrogant
> > and thought they could bulldoze it through, but if I was an AT&T
> > shareholder, I'd seriously be considering a lawsuit about now. What an
> > unbelievably boneheaded move, even for AT&T. I believe they threw
away a
> > total of about $6bn.
>
> Deutsche Telekom played AT&T well. How many think that
> Deutsche Telekom was well aware that the chances of this deal going
through were very small?
I think DT wanted the merger to succeed. They want out of the USA, but
needed the contingency payment to cover the loss of perceived value T-Mo
would be saddled with over a long merger process. I'm not sure DT is
making out like a bandit here- T-Mo USA is worth considerably less today
than when the merger was announced. This is the equivalent of AT&T
denting T-Mo's fender, then paying them restriction to make them whole.
Like many car accident victims, however, DT will pocket the money and
just drive the dented car until they pawn it off on someone else, or
drive it into the ground.
DT has simply managed to convert some of T-Mo assets, primarily "blue
sky"/goodwill and convert it into cash, and is hastening T-Mo's fall from
a 2nd-tier carrier to 3rd-tier.
In <jcqneh$joh$1@dont-email.me> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> writes:
>than when the merger was announced. This is the equivalent of AT&T
>denting T-Mo's fender, then paying them restriction to make them whole.
>Like many car accident victims, however, DT will pocket the money and
>just drive the dented car until they pawn it off on someone else, or
>drive it into the ground.
I'm not sure I agree, but I do have to give you
a double A Plus for that one...
--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
At 20 Dec 2011 10:07:26 -0800 SMS wrote:
> On 12/19/2011 3:22 PM, DevilsPGD wrote:
>
> > So anyone have any thoughts as to what this means for T-Mobile? On one
> > hand, T-Mobile gets some spectrum (and cash?) from AT&T, but on the
> > other hand, T-Mobile hasn't exactly being going all out getting the
> > hottest new devices lately either.
>
> During this whole thing T-Mobile U.S.A. was taking pains to make
> themselves appear less competitive, both in terms of price and devices.
> Now this is over they have an incentive to start trying again.
No they haven't. They've simply changed tactics, moving away from
traditional subsidy-based sales to their (no-subsidy) value plans and
monthly prepaid plans. They were losing postpaid customers pre-merger,
and still are. This isn't sabotage, it's management flailing around
trying to keep the ship afloat.
Handset selection is ok, considering they're hampered by needing custom
AWS handsets, and are the only national carrier not to have the Jesus
Phone.
> They have a new pile of money though this belongs to the parent
> corporation and they may decide to give up on the U.S. and just go into
> harvest mode, slowly selling off spectrum.
Probably eventually. I think they'll try to find a buyer for the whole
shebang first. Maybe a landline, cable or satellite company that wants
to get into wireless (Echostar, Comcast, and CenturyLink all have
spectrum at 700, 1700 or both) and could use T-Mo as a turnkey entry into
wireless.
> They could sell off spectrum piece-meal, intentionally destroying the
> U.S. division while making money from the spectrum sales, then when
> there is little left of the company simply pull out of the U.S. entirely.
> They could make roaming agreements part of the spectrum sales to keep
> their existing customers happy.
That's certainly possible. AT&T was only after the network and the
elimination of a competitor, not T-Mo's cheapskate low-ARPU customers,
and this would allow both.
> The U.S. is a tough market considering the vast unpopulated areas where
> a carrier is expected to provide coverage. Just in my area, the San
> Francisco Bay Area, there are vast undeveloped areas that are still
> popular for recreation, and where coverage is good to have, especially
> when driving through those area, but when roaming agreements with AT&T
> ended those areas lost T-Mobile coverage. Now maybe they'll get it back.
I think the opposite- realists don't expect every nook and cranny of
American wilderness to be covered, and those that do can go patronize
Verizon (and still be disappointed occasionally) or buy a satellite
phone. People just expect their phone to work where everyone elses'
does. Come to the middle of Rocky Mountain National Park where no
carrier has a signal, and no one is surprised (or complaining about it!)
At 20 Dec 2011 19:33:25 +0000 danny burstein wrote:
> In <jcqneh$joh$1@dont-email.me> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com>
writes:
>
> >than when the merger was announced. This is the equivalent of AT&T
> >denting T-Mo's fender, then paying them restriction to make them
whole.
> >Like many car accident victims, however, DT will pocket the money and
> >just drive the dented car until they pawn it off on someone else, or
> >drive it into the ground.
>
> I'm not sure I agree, but I do have to give you
> a double A Plus for that one...
>
"Damn you autocorrect!"
"Restriction" above was supposed to be "restitution".
I think we were better off in the days of good ol' fumble-fingered typos! At least then, you could usually figure out what someone meant!
In article <4ef0bd4d$0$1657$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...
>
> On 12/19/2011 11:37 PM, Steve Sobol wrote:
>
> > Yes. I know AT&T made that deal because they were incredibly arrogant
> > and thought they could bulldoze it through, but if I was an AT&T
> > shareholder, I'd seriously be considering a lawsuit about now. What an
> > unbelievably boneheaded move, even for AT&T. I believe they threw away a
> > total of about $6bn.
>
> Deutsche Telekom played AT&T well. How many think that
> Deutsche Telekom was well aware that the chances of this deal going
> through were very small?
I don't know. They may have, or they may be desperate to dump T-Mo USA.
> I don't know. They may have, or they may be desperate to dump T-Mo USA.
If they are really, really desperate, they should be able to do it.
Just put in the contract that if they win a sweepstakes T-Mo is
offering, they have to accept the prize. Then start a sweepstakes.
Make the first prize something people really want, like 4 free
Iphones (of the latest/hottest variety), with free service for two
years, and throw in some extra goodies like 4 Super Bowl tickets
and airfare to the game. When the winner accepts the prize, the
documents they sign include an additional, so far not mentioned
prize of T-Mo itself.
Or, perhaps they could go down to the unemployment office and offer
someone in line a "free home business".
On 12/20/2011 2:59 PM, Gordon Burditt wrote:
>> I don't know. They may have, or they may be desperate to dump T-Mo USA.
>
> If they are really, really desperate, they should be able to do it.
>
> Just put in the contract that if they win a sweepstakes T-Mo is
> offering, they have to accept the prize. Then start a sweepstakes.
> Make the first prize something people really want, like 4 free
> Iphones (of the latest/hottest variety), with free service for two
> years, and throw in some extra goodies like 4 Super Bowl tickets
> and airfare to the game. When the winner accepts the prize, the
> documents they sign include an additional, so far not mentioned
> prize of T-Mo itself.
>
> Or, perhaps they could go down to the unemployment office and offer
> someone in line a "free home business".
T-Mobile USA is like a timeshare that the owner can't get rid of.
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:43:55 -0700, Todd Allcock wrote:
>> ... [ slowly selling off spectrum. ] ...
>
> Probably eventually. I think they'll try to find a buyer for the whole
> shebang first. Maybe a landline, cable or satellite company that wants
> to get into wireless (Echostar, Comcast, and CenturyLink all have
> spectrum at 700, 1700 or both) and could use T-Mo as a turnkey entry into
> wireless. ...
Maybe some other international carrier -- Orange, say -- might find
buying up T-Mobile at a bargain basement price an attractive proposition.
After all, with networks in France, England, Germany, Poland, ..., there's
not much Orange doesn't know about international operations.
Of course, FCC permissions might be an obstacle, but if DT could
do it, back when it was all Voicestream, Omnipoint, Aerial, Powertel,
and Western Wireless, why not Orange now that it's all DT/T-Mo?
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
tlvp wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:43:55 -0700, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>>> ... [ slowly selling off spectrum. ] ...
>>
>> Probably eventually. I think they'll try to find a buyer for the whole
>> shebang first. Maybe a landline, cable or satellite company that wants
>> to get into wireless (Echostar, Comcast, and CenturyLink all have
>> spectrum at 700, 1700 or both) and could use T-Mo as a turnkey entry into
>> wireless. ...
>
> Maybe some other international carrier -- Orange, say -- might find
> buying up T-Mobile at a bargain basement price an attractive proposition.
> After all, with networks in France, England, Germany, Poland, ..., there's
> not much Orange doesn't know about international operations.
>
> Of course, FCC permissions might be an obstacle, but if DT could
> do it, back when it was all Voicestream, Omnipoint, Aerial, Powertel,
> and Western Wireless, why not Orange now that it's all DT/T-Mo?
>
> Cheers, -- tlvp
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:54:16 -0500, Arnie Goetchius wrote:
> tlvp wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:43:55 -0700, Todd Allcock wrote:
>>
>>>> ... [ slowly selling off spectrum. ] ...
>>>
>>> Probably eventually. I think they'll try to find a buyer for the whole
>>> shebang first. Maybe a landline, cable or satellite company that wants
>>> to get into wireless (Echostar, Comcast, and CenturyLink all have
>>> spectrum at 700, 1700 or both) and could use T-Mo as a turnkey entry into
>>> wireless. ...
>>
>> Maybe some other international carrier -- Orange, say -- might find
>> buying up T-Mobile at a bargain basement price an attractive proposition.
>> After all, with networks in France, England, Germany, Poland, ..., there's
>> not much Orange doesn't know about international operations.
>>
>> Of course, FCC permissions might be an obstacle, but if DT could
>> do it, back when it was all Voicestream, Omnipoint, Aerial, Powertel,
>> and Western Wireless, why not Orange now that it's all DT/T-Mo?
>>
>> Cheers, -- tlvp
>
> DT will buy AT&T and rename itself AT&T :-)
Arnie, go wash your mouth out :-{ ! But: Happy New Year anyway, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
AT&T ends merger attempt with T-Mobile (fwd) 
Linear Mode
